Download - america 1914: testimony on socialism and trade-unionism - commission on industrial relations
LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
RIVERSIDE
J13HS
LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
RIVERSIDE
THE DOUBLE EDGEOF LABOR'S SWORD
Discussion and Testimony00
Socialism and Trade-Unionismbefore the
Commission on Industrial Relations
BY
MORRIS HILLQUITSAMUEL GOMPERSand MAX J. HAYES
Price, 25 Gents
CHICAGO
Socialist Party, National Office
THE DOUBLE EDGEOF LABOR'S SWORD
Discussion and Testimonyon
Socialism and Trade-Unionismbefore the
Commission on Industrial Relations
BY
MORRIS ^ILLQUITSAMUEL GOMPERSand MAX J. HAYES
Price, 25 Gents
CHICAGO
Socialist Party, National Office
HS5
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 5
FIRST SESSION:
Aims and Methods of the Socialist
Movement 9
SECOND SESSION:
Socialist Attitude Towards TradeUnionism 35
THIRD SESSION:
The Aims and Methods of the
American Federation of Labor ... 86
FOURTH SESSION:
The Conflicts between Capital and
Labor 133
FIFTH SESSION:
Socialism and Trade-Unionism .... 153
Why Victor Berger voted against that
"Rider" to the Sundry Civil Bill . . 191
INTRODUCTION
On the 23rd day of August, 1912, Congress passedan act creating a commission known as the Commis-sion on Industrial Relations. The act provided amongother things that "the Commission shall inquire into
the general condition of labor in the principal indus-
tries of -the United States, including agriculture, and
especially those which are carried on in corporateforms; into existing relation between employers and
employes* * * into the growth of associations of
employers and wage-earners and the effect of suchassociations upon the relations between employers and
employes* * * into any methods which have been
tried in any state or in foreign countries for maintain-
ing mutually satisfactory relations between employesand employers
* * *. The Commision shall seek to
discover the underlying causes of dissatisfaction in
the industrial situation and report its conclusionsthereon"
It was one of the most striking measures of modern
legislation involving, as it did, an official recognitionof the existence of a general and chronic industrial un-rest and representing the first attempt at a general
stock-taking of industrial conditions and relations in
the United States.
The act specified that the Commission "shall be
composed of nine persons, to be appointed by the
President of the United States, by and with the adviceand consent of the Senate; not less than three of whom
shall be employers of labor and not less than three ofwhom shall be representatives of organized labor."
On June 26, 1913, President Wilson named the
following persons as members of the Commissions.On the part of the public: Frank P. Walsh, a well-
known lawyer of Kansas City, Missouri, to serve as
President of the Commission; Professor John R. Com-mons, the noted sociologist of Madison, Wisconsin,and Mrs. J. Borden Harriman of New York; On the
part of the employers: Frederick A. Delano, railway-
president of Chicago, Illinois ; Harris Weinstock, mer-
chant, author and social worker, of Sacramento, Cali-
fornia, and S. Thurston Ballard, capitalist, of St.
Louis, Missouri. On the part of organized labor:
John B. Lennon and James O'Connell, both officers
of the American Federation of Labor and" Austin
B. Garretson, President of the Order of Railway Con-ductors.
The Commission was given wide powers, includingthe power of holding public hearings in all parts of
the United States and compelling the attendance of
witnesses. It has held many interesting hearings andhas brought to light much valuable information on the
relations and struggles between the employing and the
working classes in the United States. But the hearingwhich will probably remain most memorable in the
annals of the American labor movement was that held
in the City of New York on May 21, 22 and 23, 1914,and which had for its object the study of the aims,
methods and mutual relations of the main divisions of
organized labor. The Socialist Party, the AmericanFederation of Labor, and the Industrial Workers of
the World, were each requested to designate spokes-men for their respective organizations, and the rep-resentatives so chosen were as follows: For the So-
cialist Party Morris Hillquit, Chairman of its Na-tional Committee; for the American Federation of
Labor Samuel Gompers, its President; for the In-
dustrial Workers of the World Vincent St. John,its Secretary-Treasurer. Additional witnesses at the
hearing were: Max S. Hayes, a prominent memberof the Socialist Party as well as of the AmericanFederation of Labor; Mr. Joseph Ettor, a representa-tive of the Industrial Workers of the World, and Mr.F. G. R. Gordon, a former Socialist, who appearedat the hearing in behalf of the American Federationof Labor. Mr. Gordon's "testimony" was brief andhad practically no relation to the subject under dis-
cussion. The testimony of Vincent St. John and
Joseph Ettor was entirely confined to the aims andmethods of the Industrial Workers of the World, andcontributed little, if anything, to the study of the mu-tual relations between Socialism and trade unionism in
the United States. These relations were treated byMessrs. Hillquit, Gompers and Hayes, and their
"testimony" represents the most exhaustive discussion
of the subject ever published. For the first time au-
thoritative spokesmen of the two great divisions of
the American labor movement, the political and the
economic, met face to face under official auspices to
compare their views, aims and methods. No limits
were set by the Commission; the "witnesses" spoke
frankly and freely, without restraint or reserve. The
proceedings were particularly enlivened by the mutualcross-examination of Messrs. Hillquit and Gompers,which occupied the better part of the hearing andheld the audience in unabated, almost spell-bound at-
tention from start to finish. It was not a hostile en-
counter, nor was it purely a battle of wits. On the
whole it was an earnest search for the truth punc-tured now and then by good-natured mutual thrusts.
Mr. Samuel Gompers, as one. of the most typical rep-resentatives jof the old-line,' pure-and-simple trade
unionists attempted to disclaim any connection, physi-cal or spiritual, between the trade union movement andthe Socialist movement, between the economic and the
political organizations of the workers. Mr. Morris
Hillquit, taking the official stand of the Socialist Party,endeavored to prove the identity of aims and interests
of both divisions of the labor movement, and the neces-
sity of their mutual co-operation on the fields of
political as well as economic battle. The numerous
involuntary concessions made by Mr. Gompers on his
cross-examination are among the most amusing and
significant features of the discussion.
The succeeding pages contain a stenographic account
of the "testimony" and cross-examination of Messrs.
Hillquit, Gompers and Hayes. A number of insignifi-cant corrections have been necessitated by stenogra-
pher's errors and by occasional lapses or loose wordingof statements on the part of witnesses. But these
corrections are purely verbal. The publishers havebeen careful to preserve the form as well as the spirit
and substance of the discussion without adding or
subtracting anything and with all the directness and
spontaneity with which it was presented before the
Commission.
It is the sincere conviction of the publishers that
the reading of this unique discussion will contribute
materially to a better understanding between the So-cialists and the trade unionists of the country, andthis booklet is published for the equal benefit of both.
New York, September, 1914.
FIRST SESSION.
Aims and Methods of the Socialist
Movement
The First Session was held in the City Hall, in the
City of New York. Mr. Frank P. Walsh, Chairmanof the Commission, presided, and the following mem-bers of the Commission were present, besides the
chairman: John B. Lennon, Mrs. J. Borden Harri-
man, Austin B. Garretson, James O'Connell, S. Thurs-ton Ballard and Frederick A. Delano.
Mr. William O. Thompson, counsel to the Com-mission, conducted the examination.
The first meeting was opened at 10 A. M.CHAIRMAN WALSH : The Commission will please
come to order. Mr. Thompson.MR. THOMPSON : Mr. Chairman and members of
the Commission : In the Act creating this Commis-sion you are directed by Congress, among other
things, to inquire into the existing organizationsof labor, and also into their effect on the industrial
situation. In obedience to that direction, we havefor our public hearings, in the next two days, the
subject of the American Federation of Labor, theSocialist Party, and the Industrial Workers of theWorld. These have been selected as being three
representative organizations of labor, in this coun-
try, and we have thought it wise to hear them
together.In the hearing on this subject it has been thought
best to put on the principal representatives of the
respective parties, who may state, as we might say,
their platform ; and as these organizations cover,
as we know, a good deal of the same field, to recall
these representatives and give them an opportunityto comment upon the reasons for their existence,
which may call for some comments on the part of
the other parties. It is the desire, as I understand,of this Commission, to permit these witnesses this
opportunity. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, 1
would like to call on Mr. Gompers for a statementof the principles and purpose of the American Fed-eration of Labor.
MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of
the Commission : I have not heard the entire state-
ment of Mr. Thompson as to the procedure con-
templated in the special investigation that is aboutto be undertaken. I have seen statements publishedin the public press as to the nature of the investiga-tion about to be undertaken ; and if there be anyproper inferences to be drawn from those state-
ments, it seems to be that the Federation is to bemade the subject for analysis and for dissection.
So far as I am concerned, as the President of theAmerican Federation of Labor, I have no hesitancyin saying that we welcome any attack or criticismor abuse, that any one may care to launch againstthe Americn Federation of Labor; and I shall en-deavor then to answer it. I am free to say this,
now, that I come in answer to the subpoena of this
Commission with the intention of playing the gameopen and fair, and with the cards upon the table.
But I do not want to have it appear upon the recordthat I have introduced matters which may seem tobe extraneous to the investigation. And yet these
same themes are the subject of general discussion
among the opponents of the American Federationof Labor, those who do not understand, and thosewho may understand it and have some peculiar kink-
in their reasoning powers, and consequently are
10
scarcely responsible for their utterances regardingthe American Federation of Labor. But be theyas they may, I think that the existing organizationsof the American working people to-day are entitled
to know what we are officially called upon to meet.I feel that it is a matter of right which I owe to
the American Federation of Labor, an organizationwhich has been in existence for more than 33 years,to know what the organization has to meet by wayof criticism or antagonism from its opponents. AsI say, I may not have the right to bring in herematters which, unless they are on the record,would be regarded as extraneous, and as havingbeen simply thrust in on my part. And I have no
hesitancy in believing that the opponents of theAmerican Federation of Labor will only welcomethe opportunity of launching all their attacks andcriticisms against us.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : I will try to reply to yoursuggestions, Mr. Gompers. I will state, as JudgeThompson started out to say, and state properlythe program for to-day :
Morning session : Samuel Gompers, statement of
purposes and methods of the American Federationof Labor, forty minutes.
Morris Hillquit, statement of purposes and methodsof Socialist Patrty, forty minutes.
Vincent St. John, statement of purposes andmethods of Industrial Workers of the World, fortyminutes.
Afternoon session: Vincent St. John (recalled).
Criticism of the other organizations :
Joseph Ettor, extension of Mr. St. John's criticism,
on the basis of practical experience.F. R. G. Gordon, statement 6n behalf of the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor.
Friday, morning session: Max Hayes, state-
ment from the point of view of a prominent member
11
of the Socialist Party, who is also active in the sup-
port of the A. F. of L.
Joseph W. Sullivan, statement on behalf of the
American Federation of Labor.
Afternoon session: Morris Hillquit, Vincent St.
John, Samuel Gompers, recalled in rebuttal.
The proposition is this, Mr. Gompers, that if youhaven't already been informed that there is, of course,a difference of opinion, not only among the various
organizations that are mentioned and called here, but
there is a lack of information on the part of the
'public as to the aims and purposes of all of these or-
ganizations. Now, the Commission has attempted to
put this in as concise and good a form as they possiblycan, to develop in the time they have at their command,a statement as to the aims and purposes of each. Youare called on first, as I understand the Committee onthese public hearings, because you represent this old
organization what might be called the standard or-
ganization of labor in this country, and inasmuch as
this is the definite organization, the Committee thoughtwell to let you make your statement of the aims and
purposes, together with these gentlemen, Mr. Sulli-
van and Mr. Gordon, and to let those who might havecriticisms come in between and then to give you an
opportunity of rebuttal. Now, whether that has been
wisely or properly laid out, that plan, nevertheless,is the plan.
MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Chairman, pardon me, yousay I am permitted forty minutes for the presenta-tion of that for which the American Federation of
Labor stands.. I have not had any previous notice
that I should be required to do that, and it is not
an easy matter for a man to attempt offhand to state
before an official body the aims and purposes of the
American Federation of Labor.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Well, if there is any reason
sufficient to you, on account of which you do not
12
desire to be heard, or if the rules laid down by the
Commission are such that you do not want to beheard under them, of course we will excuse you,
though we do not like to do it, but this is the waywe have laid down our plans.MR. GOMPERS: That is intended as a curt request
for me to retire?
CHAIR,MAN WALSH : Why certainly not. If that
sounded curt I am very sorry, as it was not so in-
tended. I did not mean to be curt. I tried to state
my proposition in a business-like and concise way,and we would be delighted to have your views.
MR. GOMPERS: I will submit to the Commission's
order, whatever it is.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Take the chair, then.
MR. THOMPSON: I would say, Mr. Chairman, that
if it is agreeable to Mr. Gompers, and if Mr. St. Johnand Mr. Morris Hillquit are here, we may hear fromthem first and give Mr. Gompers the opportunity of
collecting his data on that subject.Mr. Gompers thereupon left the stand, and the
Commission heard Mr. Vincent St. John, Secretary-Treasurer of the Industrial Workers of the World.Mr. St. John's testimony as well as that of Mr. JosephEttor, who was heard later, have no direct bearing onthe relations between Socialism and Trade-Unionism,and have therefore been omitted from this volume.Mr. Morris Hillquit was called as the next wit-
ness, and testified as followrs :
MR. THOMPSON : For the purpose of the record,will you kindly give us your name and address?
MR. HILLQUIT: Morris Hillquit, 246 West I39th
Street, New York City.MR. THOMPSON: And your occupation?MR. HILLQUIT: Lawyer.MR. THOMPSON : Are you a member of the So-
cialist Party?MR. HILLQUIT: I am.
13
MR. THOMPSON': What is the name of the party?MR. Hiii.oriT: Soriali-t Party of tlu- I'lntol
States.
MR. THOMPSON: If YOU know, how long has that
party been in existence as a party?MR. HILLQUIT: In its present form and under its
present name, since 1900.MR. THOMPSON :Were there any prior organizations
which were merged into the party?
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir. There was the Socialist-
Labor Party, organized in 1877; there was the Social-
Democratic Party, organized in 1898, and several local
organizations. The greater part of the Socialist-
Labor Party, all of the Social-Democratic Party, and
some independent organizations were merged in the
present Socialist Party.
MR. THOMPSON : What is the present form, Mr.
Hillquit, of that organization?
MR,. HILLQUIT: The Socialist Party is a political
body, consisting of state organizations within eachstate of the Union. The state organizations in
turn are comprised of local organizations, county,
city or town. The Socialist Party has an enrolled
dues-paying membership, as distinguished from other
political parties. The dues-paying membership of the
Party at the present time comprises about 115,000men and women.MR. THOMPSON : What form of control or govern-
ment has the Party, its officers, committees, etc.?
MR. HILLQUIT: It has a national committee com-posed of representatives from each state organization,representation being based on dues-paying member-ship.
The National Committee meets in 'session once a
year, and elects a National Executive Committee com-posed of five members.
There is a National Secretary, who conducts the
14
practical business of the Party throughout the year,at Chicago, with a staff of assistants.
MR. THOMPSON: This Executive Committee of five
members that you mentioned, Mr. Hillquit, is the
committee that designated you as the representativeofficial of the Party here?
MR. HILLQUIT: It is.
MR. THOMPSON : What, first, are the powers of
the larger committee, and next, the powers of thosesmaller committees and of the officers?
MR. HILLQUIT: The National Committee practi-
cally acts as a convention of the Party between regu-lar nominating conventions. It meets once a year,receives reports of officers, lays out plans of work for
the coming year, elects the executive officers, andrecommends amendments to the Constitution of the
Party.The National Executive Committee is practically
vested with the powers of the National Committeebetween sessions. It meets at frequent intervals,about once in every two or three months, and between
meetings transacts business by correspondence.The National Committee, as well as the National
Executive Committee, and the National Secretary, are
subject to directions of the membership expressed byreferendum from time to time.
MR. THOMPSON : Has the Socialist Party a con-
stitution ?
MR. HILLQUIT : It has.
MR. THOMPSON: A written constitution?
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir.
MR. THOMPSON: Have you got a copy of it?
MR. HILLQUIT: I have.
MR. THOMPSON : Would you mind filing it withthe Commission?MR. HILLQUIT: Not at all.
(The Constitution and By-Laws were marked
"Hillquit, Exhibit I.")
15
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Hillquit, I would like you to
state in your own way the reason, as you see it, for
the existence of the Socialist Party and its purposesand plans.
MR. HILLQUIT: I will start out with the purposesand plans first, and follow up with the reasons for
its existence as I see them.
The object of the Socialist Party and of the So-cialist movement may be summarized in a few wordsthe nationalization of the industries. The Socialist
Party believes that the principal and most importantindustries of the country, such upon which the life
and welfare of the community depend, should be
owned, managed, and controlled not by individuals,or private corporations, for their personal benefit and
profit and without regard to public welfare, but that
they should be conducted as a social function, prim-
arily for the benefit of the community, by responsible
agencies of the people organized for that purpose.
Concretely stated, Socialism stands for the col-
lective ownership of the principal tools, sources andresources of wealth production.
When I say collective ownership, I do not meanby that national ownership of all industries in the
country. The Socialists would abolish private, irre-
sponsible ownership and would substitute social
ownership in such form as is, in each case, best
adapted to a given industry. For instance, we advo-cate national ownership of, say, interstate railroads,
telephones, telegraphs and other means of interstate
communication and transportation. We may also
conceive the propriety of national ownership and man-
agement of mines, or of such industries as are
already organized on a national scale, such, for
instance, as the great trustified industries of the
country. We may, on the other hand, conceive of
certain industries wholly located within one state
and best managed by the state government.
16
Then, there is the large area of municipal indus-
tries, such as street cars, water works and gas works,which should be operated, and could be operatedmost economically and to the Lest advantage, by the
city.
We may also conceive of certain other industries
so unorganized, and perhaps unorganizable in their
nature, as to be incapable even of municipal opera-tion. Such industries, small industries, might be con-
ducted by co-operative groups, under certain govern-ment, supervision and control, for the protection of
the workers and consumers alike.
The system of Socialism, as we understand it, does
not necessarily exclude the private ownership and
management of purely individual industries, such as
the various arts and crafts, and other industries not
based upon the exploitation of labor, but purely on
personal efforts.
Now, this Socialist program is by no means an
arbitrary or ingenious device of a new social scheme.It is nothing but an attempt at the solution of certain
social problems which have arisen but recently, andto which, the Socialists believe, it is the only answer.
I suppose the Commission here, in going over its
very large and interesting task, has come across a
number of social problems and social evils, and oneof its objects is to find suitable remedies for them.
That is precisely what the Socialists have been doingfor the last half a century, and very few persons real-
ize that the social problems we are encountering are
new; that they have arisen within the last century,and that they require a solution such as would growout from their very nature.
The Socialists find that all or most of the indus-
trial, political, and largely also social problems of the
day are due to the private ownership of the tools andother instruments of wealth production, and that these
problems have arisen with the system of private owner-
17
of the social tool. Here, again, the general con-
ception that this is a condition that has confrontedmankind practically always is entirely erroneous.
The point which I wish to make, and which is
important for a comprehension of the Socialist philos-
ophy, is this: The conditions of a century ago ormore do not exist to-day. Wealth is produced dif-
ferently. In olden times wealth was produced on anindividual basis. That is, it was produced by meansof simple, inexpensive, individual tools. The workersor wealth producers were mostly independent mechan-ics who did not need large capital, machinery, or
factories for their work. They depended largely ontheir individual skill. They required a small tool,
which they possessed. They worked in a small work-
shop or in their homes. They produced the entire
commodity from beginning to the end. They workedfor a specific consumer; they suited his tastes. The
commodity, when produced, was their own in everysense of the term, legally, as well as morally, andthe question of division of the product could not pos-
sibly arise under such circumstances. There was nodivision of the product. The product rightfully,
logically, belonged to the producer. Then, within the
last century, imperceptibly and steadily a tremendous
change, amounting to a veritable revolution, occurredin our methods of producing wealth. We are all
familiar with it. The individual tool underwent a
gradual evolution. It developed into the more in-
volved, complex tool, then into the primitive machine,until by slow stages it reached the condition of the
modern huge machine, propelled by steam or elec-
tricity, and doing the work of thousands of hands.
Now, this change necessarily entailed a number of
corresponding changes. In the first place, a machine
requires a factory for its housing. It requires it onaccount of its great bulk; and it requires it also onaccount of the fact that a machine in its essence, j.ro-
18
duces a mere particle of the product, instead of the
entire product. So that, in order to have the whole
product, a set of machines is always required. A set
of machines, on the other hand, can only he economi-
cally maintained if operated by a large number of
employees, and if it produces large quantities of prod-ucts. So that the factory began to congregate largenumbers of individual workers under its roof.
Gradually the independent mechanic or artisan
of old times lost his independence. Graduallythe worker drifted into the factory. Gradually hebecame a mere cog in the wheel instead of being the
principal factor. It was no more a question of indivi-
dual skill or ability on his part. In order to work, hemust have the modern instruments of production.He cannot work unless he uses modern machinery,and he cannot own modern machinery. He cannotown it, first, because it represents a very large outlayof capital. It means not only the purchase of onemachine but of a number of machines, and it pre-
supposes a factory and raw material. Besides, if
the worker could own the machine, that would not
help him. Suppose you take an individual worker
to-day and give him one of the great modern ma-
chines, he would still be an industrial fraction. All hecould do would be to produce one uniform particleof some commodity, meaningless in itself.
The transformation means that we have passed fromindividualism in production to socialized production.In other words, the worker has become a social ser-
vant, as the machine has become a social tool, and the
factory a social workshop.
In keeping with this change, it would have been
logical, just and equitable to transform the ownershipof the machine into social ownership. In other words,if society, by this process of industrial evolution, has
deprived 1,000 individual workmen of 1,000 individual
tools by which they have been in the habit of making
19
a living for themselves, and has substituted for those
i,OCX) individual tools, say, ten great machines, to
be operated by the same 1,000 men, the equitable
arrangement would have been to place these 1,000
men, properly organized, in possession of the com-
plexity of new machines taking the place of the for-
mer tools, and to allow them to continue operatingthem collectively for their own uses and purposes.
The evolution, as a matter of fact, took a differ-
ent direction. While the methods of production be-
came social, and the workers became social servants,the ownership of the machine remained individual. It
drifted into the hands of, say, a lucky mechanic who,for some reason or other was enabled to make the
first start, or perhaps into those of a person who never
had anything in common with the industrial processat all, but happened to have the capital to secure the
new machine and to equip the factory to work in.
This separation of function and ownership has re-
sulted in the creation of economic classes, and there
is something which, I believe, every social investigatorand every social worker should bear in mind first of
all, the comparatively recent origin of social and eco-
nomic classes in the United States.
If you go back to the period before the introduc-
tion of modern machinery, there practically were no
permanent economic class divisions in the UnitedStates. There were those that were better off than
others, but fixed and permanent economic classes did
not exist.
The helper or apprentice of a century ago alwaysconsidered his dependent position transitory, and hehad a good right to, for, after his apprenticeship wasover, he could set up for himself, and when land wasabandoned and practically free, he could well go outand take up farming. However, with the introduc-
tion of machinery the laborer to-day, with rare ex-
ceptions, is a laborer forever, and he breeds and pro-
20
duces a generation of laborers. A workingman in
several thousands may succeed in breaking into the
ranks of wealth, but that is always an exception.
The vast majority of workers receive just enoughto sustain their lives, perhaps a little less occasionally ;
and they can never expect to save up sufficient capital
to undertake independent work with modern methodsand- on a modern scale. And, furthermore, it is
physically quite impossible for every worker to be
a factory owner, for there must be somebody in the
factory also to operate the machine. Consequently,for a majority of the workers, the condition of de-
pendence has become permanent and hereditary. Wehave for the first time in our history a fixed and
hereditary working class. And by the same token,we have permanently with us a capitalist class.
When I speak of a capitalist class, I mean the
class of men or women who own the tools of pro-duction which the workers need for their work. Theyare capitalists only to the extent to which they ownsuch tools of production. Their, ownership may be
direct or indirect; it may be represented by stocks or
bonds, but it is still ownership. A capitalist mayeven be a hard worker, but that does not change the
situation. If a capitalist is an active worker in his
industry he earns only as much as his work is worth.
But inasmuch as he derives also a workless income,an income from the ownership of the machinery of
production, whether it be a railroad or a mine or
anything else, to that extent he is a capitalist, and
in that sense the capitalists are a permanent and here-
ditary class. Here also there are exceptions. Thereare the capitalists' sons who dissipate their fortunes,and perhaps sink to the level of the laborer, but these
are likewise the exceptions, and as the fortunes growlarger the relapses become rarer and rarer. The capi-
talist class tends to become permanent and hereditary
just as much as the laboring class.
21
We claim that the origin and existence of thosetwo classes account for most of the evils for whichwe seek remedies. And that for the following rea-
sons: The ecenomic interest of the two classes are
opposed to each other; they are antagonistic. Bythat I do not mean that there always exists a per-sonal hostility between the worker and the employer.Their relations may be very friendly, very cordial,but their interests are of necessity opposed to "each
other. The capitalist deriving this income from
profits, that is, from the portion of the product which
goes to him by virtue of his ownership of the meansof production, and the worker receiving wages, whichmeans that part of the product which the capitalistleaves to him after deducting his own share, it is
natural that the capitalist will always endeavor to
make his share of the product as large as possible,and the worker likewise.
. The capitalist is in business for profits. The workeris in business for wages. Each depends upon a share
of the same general product. The smaller the wagesunder normal circumstances, the larger the profits,
and the smaller the profits the larger the wages.
So we have this economic conflict which expressesitself in a variety of ways. It works under the sur-
face; it is not even always conscsiously perceived bythe workers or the capitalists. If you tell someworkers to-day that their interests are opposed to
those of the employer, they will say, "No. they are not.
They are perfectly harmonious." At the same time.
during their work, they will instinctively act en the
opposite assumption. They will try to conserve their
labor power, the sole source of their living. Theywill strive to secure a raise of a dollar or two. or as
much as they can. They will bicker with their employerat all times, and their employer with them. It mayall be done in a good-natured way, but there is the
unconscious manifestation of the class struggle. Some-
22
times it will flare up; there will be a strike, or there
will be a lockout; sometimes it will assume a veryviolent character, such, for instance, as the presentlabor struggles in Colorado. But all these manifesta-
tions are simply different forms and different degreesof the struggle. It is always the struggle for economic
advantages between the employer and the employee,whose interests are opposed to each other.
We claim, then, that this class struggle is at the
bottom of the greatest number of our present indus-
trial problems, and we claim that this problem cannot
be solved unless we abolish the very system whichhas produced it. We may preach harmony between
employers and employees, or we may have organiza-tions especially formed for the promotion of such
harmony, such, for instance, as the National Civic
Federation, but, as a matter of fact, so long as the
economic interests of the two classes remain con-
flicting, so long will no actual harmony exist betweenthem.
The Socialists claim that by abolishing the systemof private ownership in the instruments and tools of
production, and by substituting for it a system of
collective ownership, the classes and class distinctions'
and class antagonisms will disappear, and that other-
wise they cannot. If you take all other problemswhich are kno\vn as special industrial problems, suchas the problem of child labor, or the problem of womanlabor, you find in them an application of the same
theory. So long as the modern machinery makes the
labor of women and children profitable, and so longas it is in the interest of the employer to get his labor
as cheap as possible, and so long as the workers them-selves are not paid sufficiently to maintain their
families in decent comfort, so long will child labor
and cheap woman labor prevail. Some restrictions,
some mitigations of the evil are possible, but the root
of it is in the private ownership of the .machine by
23
the individual capitalist, and will remain so long as
the system prevails.
I could go over the list of all other social prob-lems. I could take up the question of the unemployed,for instance, and bring that back to the capitalist
system. Under normal and rational economic condi-
tions there should be no unemployment in the UnitedStates. For, what does unemployment mean? It
is not that we do not stand in need or that we havea superfluity of commodities too much food or too
much clothing or furniture, and that for this reason
we cannot allow our entire working population to
continue working. We still need all that their workcan produce. There are millions of citizens who stand
in need of food, clothing, shelter, furniture, books,and so on, but we do not produce them, although wehave the facilities to do so. We have the natural re-
sources for it. We have the requisite skill for it,
and w.e have millions of workers ready and eager to
do the work required for their own sustenance. Butthe present system of production is not based uponsocial needs. It is not a social function. It is a case
where a number of individuals manufacture for profitin a haphazard fashion. They produce a certain
quantity ; they employ a certain number of men; they
employ them for as many hours a day as they canexact from them, and they are guided by the require-ments of a market which is made by the ability of
men to pay for what they need, not by what theyneed. Consequently, under the capitalist system, there
always remains an army of unemployed workers.Some of them are unemployed temporarily, others
become permanently unemployed, others lose the
capacity for work by long idleness, others become old
and disabled, and so we get the hobo and tramp andthe unemployable.
We could even take the problem of crime and vice,
and we would find that a good deal of it, by no means
24
all of it, may be brought home directly to the presenteconomic system.
The Socialists say the only way to cure all these
evils and maladjustment is by placing the ownershipof the means of production in accord with its man-ner of their operation. In other words, making the
process of wealth production social instead of in-
dividual ; making it serve the people instead of serv-
ing the capitalists; producing for use instead of pro-
ducing for profit.
The Socialists do not contemplate a complete
change of the system in one day. We fully realize
that social evolution is gradual ;that social institutions
are products of historical growth and development;that no system of society can be changed in a dayjust because a certain number of individuals think it
ought to be changed; and, for that reason, the So-
cialists work towards the gradual introduction of the
Socialist system, and also with a view to steady and
gradual improvement of present social conditions,
particularly the conditions of the workers.
The current of Socialist reform aims in two direc-
tions. We strive for the gradual socialization of the
ownership of industries. We advocate national and
municipal ownership of certain industries to-day, andwe also advocate every measure calculated to improvethe condition of the workers. Such, for instance, as
better wages, shorter hours, abolition of child labor,
state and national insurance of the workers againstold age, sickness, disability, and so on.
And in doing that, we are guided by a dual con-
sideration. In the first place the immediate benefits
of the working class are not to be neglected; theymust be recognized. It would be poor policy, if noth-
ing worse, to say to the ten or twelve million of
industrial workers: "Why, if you men and womenwill continue suffering and working for starvation
wages and continue crippling your children in the
25
factories, morally and physically; if you will be patient
enough for another generation or so. a better social
system will be introduced. But you must wait andsuffer in the meantime." The workers of to-day are
entitled to relief to-day, and to as much of it as they
possibly can secure.
On the other hand, we also know that in order to
bring about the ultimate and radical change whichthe Socialists propose, it will require a better class
of workers;a class of workers physically better fitted,
mentally better trained, and politically and economi-
cally better organized. In other words, we assumethat Socialism, as any other proposed change, politi-
cal, social or economic, can only be brought about
when the conditions are ripe for it and when the menare ripe for it, and when the machinery for the ac-
complishment of the transformation is properly or-
ganized. We do not expect the capitalists to arise
one fine morning and to say: "After all, we have
considered the situation, and have come to the con-
clusion that we have been unjust and iniquitous. Wenow abdicate our political and economic power, and wewill turn over our industries to the collectivity of the
nation." We expect that Socialism will be introduced
when a majority, or well-nigh a majority, of the
population is ready to do so, and when it has
power enough including political power to force
that change, just as every other social reform is
introduced. So that the practical program of Social-
ism, or the practical problem before the Socialists
is to increase their numbers sufficiently to secure that
power. They expect to increase their numbers prin-
cipally through accretions from that part of the popu-lation who are interested in their proposed change,and who would be economically benefitted by it, in
other words, by accretions from the working class.
And for this reason, also, the Socialists have a direct
motive in striving to elevate the physical and mental
26
conditions of the workers. If you take a worker whois badly underpaid and underfed, overworked and ill-
housed, you cannot expect him to develop a social
idealism. You cannot expect him to grasp a social
philosophy, or to develop the mental independence,and the courage to battle for a cause and a principlemore or less idealistic.
The worker who may be interested in such a move-ment is the one who has some leisure, some time .to
read, to study, to think, and to cultivate the fine sides
of life. We find in the Socialist movement here, as
well as everywhere else, that our main support comesfrom the better situated and more intelligent partof the workers. We do not mean to say by that weencourage a class distinction of workers, but there
is a certain stratum of the working class which hasbeen exploited to such an extent that it has fallen
below the level of average working-class culture orintellect. And that class, the slum proletariat, so-
called, is rarely accessible to the teachings of So-cialism or of any similar movement. On the other
hand, the better situated and more intelligent workersconstitute the bulk of the Socialist Party members and
voters, here and abroad.
The Socialist Party thus has every reason to en-
courage and support the economic organizations andthe struggles of the labor movement in all its forms.It does so in this country, it does so in every other
country. It does so for the reason that it realizes the
economic organization of labor is the main prop <5f
the worker under the present conditions ; that it serves
very largely to raise the standards of the worker'slife in every direction, and to ma:ke it better andhealthier and happier. It supports, for similar rea-
sons, the co-operative movement of the working class,and it supports every other radical reform movementbased upon actual economic needs, and aiming at
actual economic improvement.
27
The Socialist platform, which sets forth the aims,
ultimate and immediate, of the Socialist Party, con-
tains a large number of what we call "immediate
demands," that is, practical propositions for immedi-
ate reform.
MR. THOMPSON : I would like to ask you, Mr.
Hillquit, a question or two right there.
MR. HILLQUIT : Yes, go ahead.
MR, THOMPSON : In reference to the present
method, or present industrial situation of the workers,is the program of the Socialist Party limited to such
pronouncements as, say, a program of legislation for
the national and state legislators? Has it in addition
to that any other concrete machinery or organizationfor the carrying out of immediate redress in indus-
trial matters?
MR. HILLQUIT : Yes, we have the pronounced viewsof the Party on these various problems contained,not only in the platform, but in a number of other
resolutions and similar instruments. The practicalinstruments for the carrying out of our program are
as follows : In the first place, we have in the national
office of the Party, an Information Department, con-
sisting of the head of the department, and certain
assistants, whose duty it is to assist all elected membersof our Party in city councils and state assemblies, in
practical matters. For instance, a new Socialist coun-cilman may be elected in some town for the first time.
Spme measures will come up before the city council,
and he will write to the Information Department and
inquire : "What do you think of this measure, or
what stand do you think I should take, and whatshould I propose on this or that question, in con-
formity with the Socialist program," and he will
receive suggestions and information, and, perhaps,model bills to be introduced, or model ordinances.
MR. THOMPSON: Are the suggestions that may
28
be given to him made obligatory upon him by the]
Party platform?MR. HILLQUIT: No, they are purely voluntary, just
in the nature of suggestion and advice, nothing more.
MR. THOMPSON : Relating particularly now to the
industrial organization of the workers?
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes.
MR. THOMPSON : Has the Socialist Party a programor organization for dealing with them as actually en-
gaged in industry, for instance, in the shops and
factories ?
MR. HILLQUIT: No, we don't engage in the eco-
nomic struggles of the workers, except where such
struggles assume a political or general aspect. Wedo not consider it part of our mission, function or
power to interfere with the details of the economiclabor organizations, in the shop or in the unions. Wewould consider that meddling. If the relation of
the Socialist Party to the economic labor organiza-tions is of interest to you, I have here a brief resolu-
tion adopted by the convention of the National
Socialist Party in 1912, and if you wish me to, I will
read it to you.MR. THOMPSON: Will you read it?
MR. HILLQUIT: It is very short.
MR. THOMPSON : I think we might hear it, then.
MR. HILLQUIT: It is not a page (reading) : "Poli-
tical organizations and economic organizations are
alike necessary in the struggle for working class
emancipation. The most harmonious relations shouldexist between the two great forces of the workingclass movement the Socialist Party and the labor
unions. The labor movement of the United States
has of recent years made marvelous progress in all
directions. It is steadily increasing in numbers, andhas reached trades and industries which were before
unorganized. It has in many instances concentratedits power and increased in efficiency by the amalga-
29
mation of related trades into federations and indus-
trial unions. Many unions have opened their meet-
ing before adjournment to the discussion of vital
social and political problems of the working class, andhave repudiated the demoralizing policies represented
by the National Civic Federation. The organizedworkers are rapidly developing an enlightened militant
class consciousness. The reality of this progress is
attested by the increasing virulence with which the
organized capitalists wage their war against the
unions. This improved economic organization is not
a matter of abstract theory, but grows out of the
experience of the wage workers in the daily class
struggle. Only those actually engaged in the strugglein the various trades and industries can solve the prob-lems of form of organizations. The Socialist Party,
therefore, reaffirms the position it has always taken
with regard to the movement of organized labor:
First, that the party has neither the right nor the
desire to interfere in any controversies which mayexist within the labor union movement over plan or
form of organization or technical methods of action
in the industrial struggle, but trusts to the labor or-
ganizations themselves to solve those questions.
Second, that the Socialists call the attention of their
members in the labor unions to the vital importanceof the task of organizing the unorganized, especiallythe immigrants and the unskilled laborers, who standin greatest need of organized protection, and who con-stitute a great menace to the progress and welfareof organized labor if they remain neglected. TheSocialist Party will ever be ready to co-operate withthe labor unions in the task of organizing the unor-
ganized workers, and urges the labor organizationswhich have not already done so, to throw their doorswide open to the workers in their respective trades
and industries, abolishing all onerous conditions of
membership and artificial restrictions. In the face
30
of the tremendous powers of the American capitalistsand their close industrial and political unions, the
workers of the country can win their battle only bystrong class conscious and closely united organiza-tions on the economic field, and a powerful and mili-
tant party on the political field, and by joint attack
of both on the common enemy.
Third, that it is the duty of the party to give moraland material support to the labor organizations in
all the defensive or aggressive struggles against capi-talists' oppression and exploitation for the protectionand extension of the rights of the wage workers, andthe betterment of their material and social conditions.
Fourth, that it is the duty of the members of the
Socialist Party who are eligible to membership in
the unions to join and be active in their respectivelabor organizations.
MR. THOMPSON : Going back to the original ques-tion again, while the Socialists appreciate that the
underfed and underpaid and overworked people are
not apt to develop that intelligence that is necessaryto understand a rather elaborate social philosophy or
program such as the Socialist Party has, vet, whenit comes to dealing with the subject of greatly shorten-
ing the hours, increasing the pay, bettering the work-
ing conditions, they have no definite organization oftheir own, and do not go directly and specifically into
industry, but leave that to the trade unions whosegeneral purposes they, as a party, endorse?
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir.
MR. THOMPSON : And rather keep to the field of
political action as it may present itself for the carry-
ing out of the general program, such as the munici-
palization of a gas plant or street railroad?
MR. HILLQUIT: Principally, bat not exclusively.That is, the Socialist Party is a political party, prim-arily, but it is not a political party in the sense in
which the old parties are. It is not exclusively politi-
31
cal. The Socialist Party is also an educational or-
ganization. And, in addition to that, it does take
an active part in the economical struggles of the
workers where they assume a general character, for
instance, in cases of a large and extensive strike, the
Socialist Party actively supports the strikers. It sup-
ports them by means of money contributions, by meansof speakers, and also by its press. Here is a pointwhich is perhaps not generally appreciated: The So-cialist Party has better facilities, probably, for reach-
ing the non-English speaking workers of the coun-
try than any other social organization. We have
papers printed in almost every language spoken in
the United States, over 30 in number, and we have
speakers in all of those languages. In a strike of
miners, for instance, where perhaps a dozen differ-
ent nationalities are involved, one of the great prob-lems is to keep them together. Of course, we don't
manage the strike. But we very cheerfully send
speakers in all those languages to the strike region,if requested or consented to by the organization havingcharge of the strike. We send our literature there,
and, of course, we take a strong position in supportof the strike in all of our publications. We also renderactive financial, moral and other support in other
cases of labor struggles, as, for instance, in cases like
one that was presented by the Moyer-Haywood trial,
or similar legal prosecutions against labor leaders,
arising out of their connections with labor struggles.When such fights become pretty general, the So-cialist Party will join in the movement for defenceof the accused. It has done so time and time again.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON : Is it not true that the
declared position of the Socialist Party to-day is it
not true that the attitude you have described is the
only one which you could consistently take, because
active effort by committees or otherwise to performfunctions would be by you regarded as only a tetn-
32
porary makeshift until a reversal of the system hadbeen effected?
MR. HILLQUIT : I must confess I don't quite under-stand the question.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: In other words, that
on the declaration that was laid down as the basic
one of the Socialist Party, you could not consistently,from the standpoint of the Party, deal under the pres-ent methods on any other than a makeshift basis
; youwould only regard it as patchwork, and not as real
betterment ?
MR. HILLQUIT : I would not s_ay that. I would saythat I consider every real betterment as a real better-
ment, and often also as leading to the final solution andto the radical cure, but I do not consider it as a com-
plete cure: In other words
COMMISSIONER GARKETSON: (Interrupting) It would
only be grafted upon the present system?MR. HILLQUIT: I don't say that at all. It might
change the present system gradually into a new andbetter system. It is not grafting upon it. Real and
lasting reform, such as proper factory legislation,
proper protection of workingmen by social insurance,and similar measures, is not a makeshift in our eyes.We consider it as very valuable, very .substantial.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON : You very evidentlymisunderstood the scope of my question. Only to
wage and working conditions is what I intended to
apply it to. In other words, yoii work for the aboli-
tion of the wage system?MR. HILLQUIT: Well, we work to-day for the im-
provement of labor conditions, and we work ultimatelyfor the abolition of the wage system.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: And therefore youwould regard betterment in those things just as of a
temporary character until you attained the whole
object?
33
MR. HILLQUIT: Oh, no, by no means. We wouldconsider it as one step in the direction of our aim.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON : Helping it along?MR. HILLQUIT: We would consider it in this way,
Mr. Garretson: If I have set out to earn a hundred
dollars, and if I had done part of my work and earned
ten dollars, I would not consider that as a makeshiftor patchwork, but would consider it as a part realiza-
tion of my ultimate object.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Part of the $100?MR. HILLQUIT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WALSH: At this point the Commissionwill adjourn until 2 o'clock. Return here at 2 o'clock
sharp, without further notice.
34
SECOND SESSION.
Socialist Attitude Towards TradeUnionism
CHAIRMAN WALSH : The Commission will pleasecome to order. Mr. Thompson, it is the conclusion of
the Commission that in this one particular case, theywould waive the ordinary rule and let Mr. Gompersexamine Mr. Hillquit, and Mr. Hillquit examine Mr.
Gompers.MR. THOMPSON : I assume now that I am substan-
tially through with the questions I have to ask Mr.
Hillquit in regard to the application of Socialism to
the present-day industrial propositions. In other
words, I am through with the direct examination.
CHAIRMAN WALSH: If it is convenient, then, Mr.
Gompers, you may proceed.MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Hillquit, in your statement this
morning you said that the purpose of the Socialist
Party is to help the trades union movement in the
achievement of its purposes, that is, in the material
improvement of the condition of the working people.MR. HILLQUIT: I did.
MR. GOMPERS: Has that been the policy of the So-
cialist Party, of which you are a member, and with its
immediate predecessor, the Socialist Labor Party?MR. HILLQUIT: It has been the uniform policy of
the Socialist Party. It has also been the policy, in
principle, of the Socialist Labor Party, although I aminclined to think that the principle was not properlyapplied by the Socialist Labor Party for a time.
MR. GOMPERS: You said, Mr. Hillquit, it has been
the policy of the Socialist Party, and substantially its
purpose, to work for factory legislation, and legisla-
tion of that character. Will you tell the Commissionin which instances your Party has been active to secure
such legislation?
MR. HILLQUIT: The Party has been active in that
direction wherever it has had an opportunity to be
active, and more specifically in the following way:Where the Party has no representation in the State
Legislatures, its activity was necessarily limited to the
advocacy of such measures, through the Party press,the adoption of proper resolutions, and the support of
such measures in other ways.
Where the Party has had representatives in the Leg-islatures of the various states, such attempts have been
made by introducing bills for efficient labor legislation.
In the State of New York we have had one importantmovement for a measure of labor legislation, one over-
shadowing all others. That was the movement for
the adoption of a proper Compensation Act. As soonas the agitation sprang up, the Socialist Party initiated
a joint conference between the labor organizations of
the City, including the Central Federated Union of
New York, the Central Labor Union of Brooklyn, andseveral local trades councils, and the Socialist Party.It was this joint conference which was, I believe, in-
strumental, at least as much as any other factor, in
making the movement for a Workmen's CompensationAct effective ;
and it was the Socialist Party represen-tatives in that conference who led in the propagandaand in the drafting of the proposed Compensation Act.
We had for one term only, a member in the New YorkState Legislature, and that member, elected in the
county of Schenectady, submitted bills along all im-
portant lines of factory and social reform, includingmeasures for State insurance against sickness, indus-
trial accidents, old age pensions, limitation of 'child
labor, and many more measures along the program
36
advocated by the Socialist Party, and also the Amer-ican Federation of Labor. In Wisconsin we have had
representation in the Legislature for a number of
years, and I am free to state that there is not a gen-eral measure advocated by the organized labor move-ment in this country, including the American Federa-
tion of Labor, which has not found concrete expres-sion in some proposed measure submitted by the
Socialist representatives in that assembly. The sameholds true of every other state in which we have had
representation. Even the State of Washington, 1
noticed recently a statement of all the measures pro-
posed or supported by the Socialist representatives,and they cover almost the whole range of labor legis-
lation. The same holds true, of course, in a largermeasure of all countries on the European continent,where Socialism is a strong political factor.*
MR. GOMPERS: Are you through?MR. HILLQUIT: I am through.
MR. GOMPERS: The Workmen's Compensation Bill,
now a law of the State of New York, did the So-cialist Party have a hand in the framing of that Bill?
MR. HILLQUIT : The Socialist Party had at that timeno representation in the Legislature.
MR. GOMPERS: I am asking you whether you took
any part, whether the Socialist Party took any part in
the framing of that Bill.
MR. HILLQUIT : It did not and could not, and if it
* According to a compilation made by Miss Mills underthe direction of the Information Department of the So-cialist Party, Socialist representatives in the Legislaturesof nine states have introduced within the seven-yearperiod, 1907-1913, a total of 895 measures for social re-
form, of which 141 have been enacted into laws. Of thebills so introduced 207 were measures of labor legislationand 35 of these were actually passed. (See LegislativeProgram of the Socialist Party by Ethelwyn Mills.
Chicago, 1914.)
37
could have done so, the law would have been verymuch better and more efficient than it is. (Laughter.)MR. GOMPERS: Do you know that the Workmen's
Compensation Law of the State of New York is the
most comprehensive and generous of any law on the
statute books of this or of any other state and of anycountry on the face of the globe?MR. HILLQUIT: No, not of any other country, Mr.
Gompers. It is, I believe, one of the very best in thi^
country. It is far from doing social justice to the
workers, in my opinion.MR. GOMPERS: It has not established the co-oper-
ative commonwealth ?
MR. HILLQUIT: Nor has it established a properCompensation Act.
MR. GOMPERS: Now, then, do you know that the
Workmen's Compensation Act was drafted by author-
ity and direction of the New York State Federationof Labor?MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, after the New York State Fed-
eration of Labor had received a good deal of valuable
instruction on the subject from the Socialists. I know
something about it, Mr. Gompers. (Laughter in the
audience.)CHAIRMAN WALSH : We must keep order, ladies
and gentlemen, and it will not be proper to make anydemonstration at any time.
MR. GOMPERS: Who gave that instruction? Whatdid that instruction consist of?
MR. HILLQUIT: Why, when we first met the rep-resentative of the State Federation of Labor, Mr.
Gompers, we found that the majority of the membersdid not even know what workmen's compensationstood for, and we have had a sort of study class there.
I remember it very well. The first draft prepared bythem was so dolefully inadequate, that we urged Mr.
McDonough, who then represented the American Fed-eration of Labor to withdraw it, and to re-draft and
38
remodel his bill. Nothing passed at that session of the
legislature. Then the bill passed which was declared
unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals, and when
finally the present bill was prepared, it came very muchcloser to our original draft.
MR,. GOMPERS : Do you know that there was a meet-
ing in the Assembly Hall of the New York Legislaturewhere the joint committees of the legislature had hear-
ings and investigations in regard to the Workmens'
Compensation Bill, now a law?MR. HILLQUIT : I appeared in one of those hearings
on Workmens' Compensation.MR. GOMPERS: I refer to the hearing by the Joint
Committee of both houses of the legislature.MR. HILLQUIT: Appointed by Governor Hughes.
It was the first and only one. The Wainwright Com-mission, is that it ?
MR. GOMPERS: No, sir, you are quite in error, Mr.
Hillquit. That is, pardon me; I have no right to saythat. But I refer to the Workmens' CompensationBill when Mr. Sulzer was Governor.
MR. HILLQUIT: If there was such a commission,* I
know nothing about it, for I was abroad at that
time. I know that the subject as originally taken upby the Wainwright Commission, and that before
that Commission, the Socialist Party was officially rep-resented by your humble servant, and one or two other
representatives. We urged our views on the Commis-sion in favor of an effective and broad compensationact, and I believe they received some consideration.
MR. GOMPERS: Was the Wainwright Commissioncreated by an act of the legislature of the State ofNew York?MR. HILLQUIT : Yes.
MR. GOMPERS: Was that urged by the Socialist
Party?* As a matter of fact there was no such commission.
39
MR. HILLQUIT: Was what urged by the Socialist
Party?MR. GOMPERS: The creation of this Commission?
MR. HILLQUIT : The Socialist Party was very muchin favor of the creation of such Commission. It did
not happen to be in power, and could not appoint a
committee.
MR. GOMPERS: Do you know that the AmericanFederation of Labor has gone on record for more than
ten years in favor of a workmens' compensation law
for the States and for the Federal Government ?
MR. HILLQUIT: I have no fault to find with the
American Federation of Labor in its attitude on work-mens' compensation. I think that is one of the thingsthat the American Federation of Labor did properly.
MR. GOMPERS: Do you know what the Socialist
Party contributed toward that end ?
MR. HILLQUIT: I know it has contributed a gooddeal along the lines on/which it could contribute. I
know that the Socialist Party had expressed itself in
favor of workmens' compensation or State insurance
of workers in case of accidents, much longer than 10
years ago, and even before the American Federationof Labor had taken it up, and I should not be surprisedif the American Federation of Labor was directly in-
fluenced by that Socialist propaganda in taking it up.
MR. GOMPERS: Do you know of the efforts of the
Socialist Party to secure workmens' compensation for
the government employes of the United States ?
MR. HILLQUIT: I would not specify governmentemployes. The Socialist Party of the United States
pronounced itself in favor of workmens' compensationgenerally, drafted a model Workmens' CompensationAct, sent it to all State Secretaries of the organizationand to all its locals, with the recommendation to makespecial propaganda for it, and in 1910,- I believe, it
passed a resolution urging the various local organiza-
40
tions of the Socialist Party to concentrate their efforts
upon workmens' compensation.*MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Hillquit, I have no desire to
curb you in any way, but where you can answer Yesor No, that does no violence to your position, it wouldbe proper; and if exemplification or amplification is
necessary, why, it would be better to do it then.
CHAIRMAN WALSH: Wherever an answer Yes orNo can be given, give it first, Mr. Hillquit, and thentake all the time you need to explain your answer.
MR,. HILLQUIT : I am perfectly well satisfied. I did
not know my friend, Mr. Gompers, was so legallytechnical.
MR. GOMPERS: I would like to have some definite
answer to a definite question.MR. HILLQUIT: Very well, Mr. Gompers.MR. GOMPERS: What assistance, if any, was given
by the Socialist Party to the creation of a Bureau ofMines for the protection of the lives and health andconditions of the miners?
HILLQUIT: The same assistance as the assist-
* The resolution is as follows :
"The Congress strongly advises all state and local organ-izations of the party to give careful study to the subject of
workmen's compensation laws, to train a corps of speakersand writers qualified to deal with the campaign for the enact-
ment of such laws and for their improvement in any cases
where they may be enacted in an unsatisfactory form.
"The Congress instructs the National Executive Committeeto assume the duty of correlating the efforts of the variousstate and local organizations on this line, assisting them in
the collection and exchange of information, the training of
speakers and writers, the publication and distribution of liter-
ature, so as to give the movement a nation-wide scope."The Congress invites the labor unions of all trades and
industries to join with the Party in the prosecution of this
work, and urges the Party organizations in every industrial
center to enter into conference with the local central laborbodies for that purpose."
41
ance given in other similar measures, that of propa-ganda for it.
MR. (ioMi-KKs: Did the Socialist Party aid in secur-
ing the enactment of a law for uniform couplers oncars on railroads?
MR. HILLQUIT: I do not think that specific questionever came up before the Socialist Party.MR. GOMPERS: Did the Socialist Party ever take
any part in securing vestibules for the street railwaymen ?
MR. HILLQUIT: The Socialist Party never took partin propaganda for special legislation affecting certain
special trades. It considers that to be within the pro-vince of the organized workers within the particulartrades or industries.
MR. GOMPERS: Did I understand you correctly to
say this morning that the Socialist Party always wasand is now in favor of the trade union movement, the
labor union movement?MR. HILLQUIT : You understood me correctly.
MR. GOMPERS: Do you recall or do you know that
at the convention of the American Federation of Labor
in Detroit the Socialist Party insisted upon represen-tation in that convention as a political party?
MR. HILLQUIT: That was when, Mr. Gompers, 1890,
was it?
MR. GOMPERS: About that time.
MR. HILLQUIT: I know that the Socialist Labor
Party that then existed claimed the right to represen-tation in the convention of the American Federation
of Labor through membership in the Central LaborFederation of New York, and such representation wasnot granted. The Socialist Party never claimed such
representation.MR. GOMPERS: They felt outraged at such an ex-
clusion ?
MR. HILLQUIT: The Socialist Party did not feel
42
outraged at such an exclusion because the Socialist
I 'arty never sought representation.MR. GOMPERS: Did the Socialist Party ever inau-
gurate a movement to supplant or to be in rivalry with
the American Federation of Labor?MR. HILLQUIT: The Socialist Party very emphati-
cally did not. The Socialist Labor Party at one time
conceived the notion of forming an organization of
trades unions in opposition to the American Federation
of Labor, and constituting a distinct Socialist economic
organization. This act on the part of the Socialist
Labor Party brought about a split within the Party,and the Socialist Party of to-day was organized largelyon that issue and because it did not agree with that
policy.MR. GOMPERS: The Socialist Party which you now
represent before the Commission is the successor of
the Socialist Labor Party as it existed?
MR. HILLQUIT: It is the successor of that part of
the Socialist Labor Party which rebelled against the
labor policy just mentioned by you. Those who were
opposed to the policy seceded and formed the new So-
cialist Party.MR.. GOMPERS: The Socialist Labor Party is still in
existence ?
MR. HILLQUIT: The Socialist Labor Party is still
nominally in existence.
MR. GOMPERS: Do you think the members of the
Socialist Labor Party would agree with you in sayingit is still nominally in existence?
MR. HILLQUIT: I don't know. They represent the
same proportion in the Socialist movement as the
I. W. W. represents in the American labor movement.CHAIRMAN WALSH : In round numbers how many
members are there in the United States of the Social-
ist Party?MR. HILLQUIT: About 115,000 dues-paying mem-
bers.
43
CHAIRMAN WALSH : And how many in the Socialist
Labor Party, do you know?MR. HILLQUIT: I estimate about 1,500.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Where do you get that .esti-
mate?MR HILLQUIT: Pretty much from the Socialist
Labor Party. The last time they gave OJL** a statement
of membership, it was between 2 and 3 thousand, and
they have since fallen off as may be noticed by their
referenda and other indications.
MR. GOMPERS: Who was the candidate of the So-cialist Party for President of the United States
in 1912?MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Eugene V. Debs.
MR. GOMPERS: Who was in 1908?MR. HILLQUIT : Likewise.
MR. GOMPERS: And in 1902?MR. HILLQUIT: 1902? There was no Presidential
candidate in 1902, when you come to think of it.
MR. GOMPERS: 1904?MR. HILLQUIT : It was Debs.
MR. GOMPERS : Is it unfair to assume that the can-
didate of your Party for the Presidency of the UnitedStates expresses the views of the Party? Is he the
Party spokesman and standard bearer?
MR. HILLQUIT : It is entirely unfair to assume that,
in view of the expressed position of the Party itself.
In other words, Mr. Gompers, when the Socialist
Party, in convention assembled, officially takes a stand
on its relation to organized labor, no individual mem-ber of the Party, no matter what his position, can
nullify or modify that stand.
MR. GOMPERS: Do you know that Mr. Eugene V.Debs was present at the First Annual Convention of
the organization which formed the so-called Industrial
Workers of the World?MR. HILLQUIT: I do.
44
MR. GOMPERS: Have you read any of his speeches
during that convention?
MR. HILLQUIT: I have read some.
MR. GOMPER.S: Do you regard his expressions as
being friendly or in favor of the trades union move-
ment, the American Federation of Labor?MR. HILLQUIT : . As I understand his position, his
attitude is not friendly toward the leaders of the Amer-ican Federation of Labor. His attitude is more
friendly toward the members of the American Federa-tion of Labor. But these are his personal views to
which he is entitled.
MR. GOMPERS : When Mr. Debs says : "The Amer-ican Federation of Labor has numbers, but the capi-talist class do not fear the American Federation of
Labor. Quite the contrary." Do you regard that
utterance as a friendly expression for the AmericanFederation of Labor ?
MR. HILLQUIT: I do not, nor do I regard it as an
authorized utterance of the Socialist Party.MR. GOMPERS: Speaking of the American Federa-
tion of Labor and of some Socialists, he says : "Thereare these who believe that this form of unionism can
be changed from within. They are very greatly mis-
taken." Do you agree with Mr. Debs on that utter-
ance?
MR. HILLQUIT : I do not agree. I think, on the con-
trary, the American Federation of Labor is being
forced, and will be forced more and more to gradually
change its form of organization, to adjust itself to the
forms of modern industrial conditions.
MR. GOMPERS: I read this, and ask you for youropinion. Mr. Debs says in that speech : "There is but
one way to effect this change, and that is for the work-
ingman to sever his relation with the American .Fed-
eration."
MR. HILLQUIT: I do not agree with that, nor doesthe Socialist Party agree with that. And, to make our
45
position clear once for all, Mr. Gompers, I will saythat it will be quite useless to quote Mr. Debs on his
attitude to the American Federation of Labor. Mr.Debs took part in the organization of the Industrial
Workers of the World. I think he has now lived to
regret it, but whether he does or not, the fact is that he
acted entirely on his own accord and on his own re-
sponsibility ; that the Socialist Party at no time ap-
proved, directly or indirectly, of that stand, and at notime have endorsed the Industrial Workers of the
World as against the American Federation of Labor.And I will say further that the Socialist Party at notime made fundamental criticisms against the Amer-ican Federation of Labor, although I am just as frankto add that the Socialist Party, or at least the majorityof its members, do believe that the present leadershipof the American Federation of Labor is somewhatarchaic, somewhat antiquated, too conservative and notefficient enough for the objects and purposes of the
American Federation of Labor. That is the generalSocialist position.MR. GOMPERS: Of course as to the leadership, that
must be determined. The leadership of the AmericanFederation of Labor, I assume, must be determined bythe membership of the organization, as it can best giveexpression to its preference.MR. HILLQUIT: Entirely so.
MR. GOMPERS: Are you aware that the leadershipto which you refer, has been elected and re-elected by
practically unanimous vote for several years past ?
MR. HILLQUIT: We do not contest the election nor
the legitimacy of office of the officials of the A. F. of
L. We only wish they were a little more abreast of
the time, and that they would keep pace with industrial
developments.MR. GOMPERS: Reverting to Mr. Debs, he does not
oppose the leadership only. In his speechMR. HILLQUIT: If you will read all, you will find
46
that his opposition is largely, if not exclusively, directed
against the leadership as he sees it. And I reiterate
once more that it is his individual stand.
MR,. GOMPERS: You have said that it is his individ-
ual stand, yet the speech to which I refer and in whichhe asks and urges the workmen to leave the AmericanFederation of Labor, was made some time in June or
July, 1908, and Mr. Debs was twice made the standardbearer of the Socialist Party as candidate for Presi-
dent of the United States since that time.
MR. HILLQUIT : Yes, sir. He was. There was ab-
solutely no reason why he should not be, in view ofthe fact that the Party itself had at the same time veryexplicitly declared its stand on organized labor, andit did not have to apprehend that any of its represen-tatives might misrepresent its attitude.
MR. GOMPERS: Do you know that Mr. Debs has,
within these past weeks, issued a document in whicnhe urges the secession of two of the largest organiza-tions from the American Federation of Labor, for the
purpose of destroying the American Federation of
Labor?MR. HILLQUIT: I do. May I add, Mr. Gompers, that
this likewise was wholly and fully done by his owninitiative and on his own responsibility, and is in no
way approved of or condoned by the Socialist Party.We allow liberty of expression and opinion within the
Socialist Party, you know.MR. GOMPERS: Do you regard that as the individua!
expression of opinion, when a man thrice the candidate
of a political party, urges that a movement be inau-
gurated to dissolve the only general federation of or-
ganized workmen that ever existed for a period of
time, such as the American Federation of Labor ?
MR. HILLQUIT: I regard it purely as the individual
expression of the man. The Socialist Party never
places its program or views into the hands of an in-
dividual candidate. It speaks for itself in conventions.
47
MR. GOMIM.RS: And the candidate for the Presi-
dency of your party does not express, then, the senti-
ments and the views of the Party itself, is that the in-
ference to be drawn from your answer ?
MR. HII.LQUIT : You may draw this inference, that,
whenever a candidate of the Socialist Party for the
Presidency or otherwise, deviates from the declared
principles of the Socialist Party, he does not speak for
the Party, but speaks entirely on his responsibility.Are you still quoting Mr. Debs?MR. GOMPERS : Perhaps. Would you hold the same
line of conduct to apply to, say, Mr. Taft, who was the
candidate for President of the United States, nomi-nated by the Republican Party ?
MR. HILLQUIT : No, sir. The Republican Party has
no declaration of general principles; no expressedattitude towards labor unions ; no general social philos-
ophy, and no social views of any kind. Its candidate
for President therefore necessarily acts as the spokes-man of his party. The Socialist Party is entirely dif-
ferent in this respect.MR. GOMPERS: Would you say the candidate of
the Prohibitionists, the candidate for President, if hewere to make a declaration that was inconsistent withwhat his party would hold, would you regard that as
simply his individual expression of opinion ?
MR. HILLQUIT: If the candidate for President of
the Prohibition Party were to take a drink, I wouldnot say that the Prohibition Party was committed to
the drink evil.
MR. GOMPERS: 1 prefer not to bring in the personalhabits of any man. I don't know that that is illumi-
nating or contributory to the discussion.
MR. HILLQUIT : I did not mean to be personal, Mr.
Gompers.MR. GOMPERS: The question as to the candidate for
President of the Prohibition Party is nothing to me.
I was speaking of personal declarations. Supposing I,
48
as President of the American Federation of Labor,were to go upon the platform and give expression in
a speech, or were to write an editorial in the AmericanFederationist, urging the dissolution of the AmericanFederation of Labor,MR. HILLQUIT: Of the Socialist Party, you mean,
to apply your analogy.MR. GOMPERS: Evidently you want to bandy words
with me rather than to answer the question.MR. HILLQUIT: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Wait until the question is fin-
ished and then answer, if you can.
MR. GOMPERS: Supposing Mr. Gompers, President
of the American Federation of Labor, were upon a
public platform or in articles contributed to the Labor
Press, to advocate the dissolution of the American Fed-eration of Labor, would you regard that as a personalexpression of my own ?
MR. HILLQUIT: I would, decidedly. If you, as the
President of the American Federation of Labor, wereto advocate a dissolution of the American Federationof Labor, without such' a resolution having been passedby the Federation, I certainly should not say that youvoiced the sentiments of the organization.
Furthermore, with all due respect to you, youranalogy does not apply, Mr. Gompers. Mr. Debs, a
leading member of the Socialist Party, advocates cer-
tain changes in the American Federation of Labor. If
you, as the President of the American Federation of
Labor, were to advocate a change or dissolution in orof the Socialist Party, you would be in an analogousposition, and I certainly would not regard that as anofficial expression of the American Federation of La-bor. Furthermore, you, Mr. Gompers, have very oftentaken a stand hostile to the Socialist Party. I do not
regard that as the official expression of the AmericanFederation of Labor, for I know that the membership,or a very large portion of it, hold very different views
49
on the subject. That does not come within yourdomain as President of the American Federation of
Labor, although you, as an' individual, are at libertyto hold such opinions, and the Federation does not
in any way discipline you for holding them. There *s
your analogy.MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Hillquit, these speeches which
you have made a thousand and one times
CHAIRMAN WALSH : I would not get into any argu-
ments, Mr. Gompers, with the witness, but just ques-tion him. When you go on the witness stand, he is
going to ask you questions, and I suppose you can
make some when you come to go on there.
MR. GOMPERS: All right, Mr. Chairman. Now, ,of
course, Mr. Hillquit, you understand that the articles
or editorials which I have written and published in
the American Federationist, all of them have beencaused by the defensive attitude which the AmericanFederation has been forced to take against the aggres-siveness and hostility of the Socialist Labor Party andthe Socialist Party?MR. HILLQUIT: I don't think. so at all, Mr. Gompers.
If you ask me about my understanding of it, my under-
standing is that those articles have been caused by yourfear of the increasing growth of Socialism in the ranksof the Federation. That is my understanding of it.
MR. GOMPERS: Well, of course, you would not at-
tribute to me very great fear of anything, would you'
MR. HILLQUIT: Of anything?MR. GOMPERS: Of anything.MR. HILLQUIT: If you want my opinion, Mr. Gom-
pers, I should say you are a very brave man. but youdo hate to see the American Federation of Labor turn-
ing Socialistic.
MR. GOMPERS: The reason I do so is the result of
conviction
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Mr. Gompers, please do not
get into an argument with the witness now. You can
SO
go on the witness stand and he will examine you and
you will have the same latitude of stating your views.
But just ask him questions, please.
MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Debs, in his speech, to which I
have referred before, said: "I appeal to you to ally
yourselves with the economic organization which em-braces your entire class." He referred to the Indus-
trial Workers of the World, organized in 1905. Will
you give me your judgment as to the extent to whichthat organization embraces the entire working class?
MR. HILLQUIT: Of the world? Not very much,Mr. Gompers. It was the fond hope of the organizers,which I never shared, that it would; but it does not.
MR. GOMPERS: He says further: "I would appealto you to declare yourselves here and now, to be for
once and forever true enough to yourselves to jointhe only industrial union that is absolutely true to you
the I. W. W." And the stenographer put "Loud
Applause." Will you give your opinion of that state-
ment?MR. HILLQUIT : My opinion is the same that I have
given you before. I think Mr. Debs was carried awayby his enthusiasm, when he thought he could create an
artificial organization to embrace all the workers
joined in one great industrial union. I think his viewsof trade unionism are not sound. At any rate, theyare not those of the Socialist Party and they are not
mine; and you might just as well read 200 quotationsfrom his speeches on that subject as five.
MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Debs then said: "Now, we, the
Socialists, who have organized the Industrial Workers,have had enough of this kind of experience. We have
quit the old unions."
MR. HILLQUIT : I presume he has had enough, Mr.
Gompers. He does not speak for others.
MR. GOMPERS: Isn't it true that at the last con-
vention of the Socialist Party, held at Indianapolis,Mr. Karl Legien, of Germany, was urged to be in at-
51
tendance in order that he might help prevent the intro-
duction and passage of a resolution hostile to the tradeunion movement?MR. HILLQUIT: It is not. Mr. Legien was asked
to be present as a prominent Socialist, and as the In-
ternational Trades Union Secretary, in order to de-
liver an address on the experiences of the Socialists
of Germany and the organized workers in their mutual
co-operation, which he did and did very well.
MR. GOMPERS: Do you know at the time when the
Socialist Party convention was about to be held Mr.
Legien was lecturing under the auspices of the Amer-ican Federation of Labor?
MR,. HILLQUIT: Yes, that was about the most pro-
gressive thing the American Federation of Labor ever
did.
MR. GOMPERS: And do you know that he asked per-mission from the American Federation of Labor that
he might cancel a few engagements already made, so
that he could attend the Socialist Party convention for
the purpose I indicated by my first question?MR. HILLQUIT: I don't know his specific engage-
ments. I know that Mr. Legien came here primarilyon the invitation of the American Federation of Labor,
in which the Socialist Party joined; and the under-
standing was that he was first to lecture for the Amer-ican Federation of Labor, and then for the Socialist
Party.MR. GOMPERS: The New York Call is one of the
official journals of the Socialist Party, is it not?
MR. HILLQUIT : Not official. But it is a Socialist
paper.MR. GOMPERS: A recognized Socialist paper?MR. HILLQUIT: Yes.
MR. GOMPERS: Speaking with some degree of au-
thority ?
MR. HILLQUIT: Editorially, mostly speaking with
some degree of authority.
52
MR. GOMPERS : This appeared in it in the issue of
December i6th, 1909: "Don't like the I. W. W.?Well, don't kill the kid. He will grow, and we shall
need him in our business by and by, and possiblysooner than many of us believe."
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, did that ap-
pear as an editorial or as a contributed letter by somereader ?
MR. GOMPERS : I can't say, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: I can help you out, Mr. Gompers.It was never part of an editorial. That was one of the
many letters sent to the Call by all sorts of writers,
which the Call publishes, just as the Evening Globe
does, without taking any responsibility for them.
MR. GOMPERS: In a work entitled "Industrial
Union Movement," the preface is written by C. H.
Kerr, a prominent American Socialist, a member of
the Party, and a large publisher of Socialist literature.
In it he says : "As Marxian students of evolution, we(Socialists) recognize that economic concentration has
made trade unions obsolete, and that the principle ofindustrial unionism must be adopted in the nearfuture."
MR,, HILLQUIT: What do you want to know with
reference to that, Mr. Gompers?MR. GOMPERS: Is that a Socialist expression in
favor of the American labor union movement?MR. HILLQUIT : Why, it might be. The expression
comes from Mr. Kerr, I believe, in a preface to "In-
dustrial Socialism." "Industrial Socialism was a
pamphlet, written by Mr. Haywood and Mr. Bohn,and indirectly led to Mr. Haywood's recall from the
National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party.
It never represented the accepted views of the So-
cialist Party. It seems to me that the passage that
you read, while it may be crude, contains a good deal
of sound truth. In other words, what it means is that
the industrial evolution in this country has been such
53
as to bring to the front ever larger and closer indus-
trial organizations of capital, and the trade union;-,
evidently will have to adjust themselves to the newsituation and reorganize on an industrial basis. TheAmerican Federation of Labor might not say it in so
many words, but I think it has felt it, and I think it is
undergoing a process of change in its organizationjust now in that very direction.
MR. GOMPERS: You read. the proceedings of the
American Federation of Labor fairly carefully, don't
you, Mr. Hillquit?MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, fairly so.
MR. GOMPERS: Did you read the proceedings ofthe Rochester convention of the American Federationof Labor, held in that city, in 1912?MR. HILLQUIT : Yes, I did, Mr. Gompers.MR. GOMPERS: Did you read the declaration of the
Executive Council of the American Federation of
Labor on the subject of Industrial Unionism?MR. HILLQUIT: I believe so, but I don't recall it.
MR. GOMPERS: It didn't make sufficient impression
upon your mind that you can now recall it?
MR. HILLQUIT : No, but if you will be kind enoughto focus my attention on the point you have in mind.I suppose I shall remember it.
MR. GOMPERS : I hand you a copy of that report.MR. HILLQUIT: Thank you.MR. GOMPERS: And which, Mr. Chairman, I hope,
may be marked as an exhibit now, or when I am a
witness before the Commission I shall have the oppor-
tunity of presenting it in my own evidence.
CHAIR.MAN WALSH: What is it?
MR. GOMPERS: A report made by the Executive
Council of the American Federation of Labor to the
Rochester Convention of that Federation, November,1912. I ask Mr. Hillquit whether he had kept in-
formed upon the work of the American Federation of
Labor, and he said that he did.
54
CHAIRMAN WALSH : And do you recognize that as
being the paper described?
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : And you can testify that it is
authentic?
MR. HILLQUIT: Oh, yes, it is that.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Very good, let it go in evidence
at thte time.
(Received and marked "Hillquit's Exhibit A.")MR. HILLQUIT: And I think I remember the con-
tents pretty well now, Mr Gompers, after looking it.
over.
MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Hillquit, you have seen that
pamphlet which I handed you, and which is a reprint
of the report of the Executive Council to the Roches-
ter American Federation of Labor Convention. Youwill find also a reprint in that same pamphlet of the
report of the committee to which this declaration wasreferred and the action of the convention thereon.
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes.
MR. GOMPERS: Now, as an advocate of industrial
unionism, will you point out to the Commission that
from which you dissent?
MR. HILLQUIT: Why, but Mr. Gompers, I don't
dissent. I stated, on the contrary, that the AmericanFederation of Labor is rapidly and irresistibly driftinginto industrial organization, and I am very glad to
notice the process.MR. GOMPERS: Of course, we are all, when there is
anything good done, no matter how or by whom orunder what circumstances, it affords us all satisfaction,but that is not the question.CHAIRMAN WALSH: What was the question,
whether or not, he disserited from anything said in
there ?
MR. HILLQUIT: From what view I dissented.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Do you dissent?
MR. HILLQUIT : I do not dissent.
55
CHAIRMAN WALSH : That answers it.
MR. GOMPERS: Then, sir, if you don't dissent fromthe declaration of the American Federation of Labor
upon the subject of Industrial Unionism, will youplease tell the Commission how it comes that Mr. Debsand many other Socialists, whose names I can mentionat this time, advocate the dissolution of the AmericanFederation of Labor on the question of Industrial
Unionism ?
MR. HILLQUIT: I cannot answer for the operationof the mind of Mr. Debs or anybody else, but I maypoint out the following, first: That the first declara-
tion on Industrial Unionism promulgated by Mr. Debsand his comrades, when organizing the I. W. W., wasadopted in 1905, and the declaration of the Federation
of Labor was adopted in 1912, seven years later. That
is, the American Federation of Labor once more fol-
lowed in the wake of the Socialist agitation. The next
point, Mr. Gompers, is that I understand the differ-
ence between the industrialism advocated by you andthe industrialism advocated by the I. W. W., and par-
ticularly by Mr. Debs, to be that the industrial formof organization which you advocate consists of a fed-
eration of similar crafts or trades within one industry,not organically united to co-operate with each other in
matters of common interest, and that the industrial
form of organization advocated by Mr. Debs is an or-
ganic union of all crafts embodied within one industry.MR. GOMPERS: You know, I had already questioned
you upon the declarations made by Mr. Debs in 1905 ?
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes.
MR. GOMPERS: My last question has reference to
the article written by Mr. Debs, appealing to the
unions within these past two weeks to secede and sup-
plant the American Federation.
MR. HILLQUIT: You have asked me that before, Mr.
Gompers, and I have answered before that the So-
cialist Party does not stand sponsor for those plans.
56
The Socialist Party is no more responsible for themthan the American Federation of Labor would be for
an expression of an executive member of its Board onthe subject of religion.
MR. GOMPERS: In that article addressed to the
United Mine Workers of America, and to the WesternFederation of Miners, he says that the American Fed-eration of Labor as an aggregation of craft unions hasoutlived its usefulness.
MR. HILLQUIT: I don't agree with this opinion.MR. GOMPERS : I want to call your attention to the
fact that the same article is published in the United
Mine Workers Journal and in the Western Federa-
tion of Miners' official magazine, the Miners' Mag-azine. In the latter it is published without comment.
In the United Mine Workers' Journal it is publishedwith an introductory editorial note strongly dissent-
ing from that view. That editorial, on page 4 of the
United Mine Workers' Journal of Thursday, May1 4th, 1914, bears the heading, "Secession Not the Wayto Unity." Do. you agree with the view expressed bythe editor of the United Mine Workers' Magazine in
that heading?MR. HILLQUIT: Yes. The United Mine Workers'
Journal, of course, which prints a comment, and the
magazine of the Western Federation of Miners, are
your organs ;that is, both organizations belong to the
American Federation of Labor.
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, and Debs advocated the seces-
sion of both those organizations from the AmericanFederation of Labor, they to call a convention of all
organizations and to form what he calls an industrial
union, one big union to take the place of the AmericanFederation of Labor.
MR. HILLQUIT: I am inclined to agree, Mr. Gom-pers, with the editorial you mention. I don't believesecession from the Federation is the way to reform.I think the A. F. of L. is fully capable of progress and
57
enlightenment, and I believe it is one of the functions
of the Socialist Party to carry on such education as
possible within the ranks of the A. F. of L., and I
have no doubt at all that ultimately the members ofthe A. F. of L. will be just as enlightened and pro-
gressive as members of any other organization.MR. GOMPERS: Of course, those who are so thor-
oughly educated that they can learn nothing, knowit all, and we are not of that character.
MR. HILLQUIT: The leaders of the A. F. of L. are
not of that character.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : That is not a question and
really has no place in the record.
MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Chairman, nor was that an an-
swer, nor was the statement made by Mr. Hillquit a
pertinent answer to my question.CHAIRMAN WALSH : I don't think so either.
MR. HILLQUIT: Pardon me. The Chairman of
the Commission having agreed with the ques-tioner, I must take exception to it. The question
was, if you will recall, "Do you agree with this edi-
torial or the thought expressed in it?" That cer-
tainly called for an answer as to whether or not I
agreed with those views, and upon what grounds, andI do not see why my answer was not perfectly re-
sponsive. I would be, if tested by the strictest rules
of evidence, and I think it should be before this Com-mission.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : I may be wrong. I made an
off-hand decision there to get through with it. It is
generally leading to an argument of a rather ex-
traneous nature.
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, but when an opinion is called
for, it must be expressed.MR. GOMPERS: I say just this. This may appear
as rather long drawn out, but I think that since the
Commission has entered into this domain, it will ob-
tain more fundamental information upon the construe -
58
tive work of the American Federation of Laborand the destructive tactics employed by other
elements than can be obtained in any other way. If
you did not care to have this discussion opened upwide, it might have been better then that it had not
been opened up at all. I am perfectly willing to sub-
mit myself to the examination of Mr. Hillquit. He is
a lawyer ;I am not. I have no parchment nor diploma
of which I can boast. Simply the plain, ordinary ex-
perience of a workingman, who has tried to learn
something, and, as I have said this morning, when I
am on the stand, I play this game with my cards downand face up, nothing to hide, nothing to equivocate,
nothing to evade, and everything that this Commis-sion will want to know in connection with the Amer-ican Federation of Labor will be spread before you.CHAIRMAN WALSH : You may proceed.MR. GOMPERS: Conceding the fact that the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor and its rank and file and its
officers are learning a bit, now, in view of the declara-
tion on industrial unionism adopted by the convention
of the American Federation of Labor in 1912, I ask
you what dissent you have to make, as a Socialist be-
lieving in industrial unionism, what dissent you haveto make against this declaration ?
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Without in any way undertak-
ing to limit this examination, or to shorten its scope in
any way, I am going to rule that the question has been
fully answered by the witness, that he dissents in no
way whatever, and he gave an explanation, if I amcorrect.
MR. HILLQUIT: May I reply to that, Mr. Chairman?CHAIRMAN WALSH : Unless there is some dissent
from the Commission, I will rule that that question hasbeen asked and answered. You may proceed now toanother question.MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Chairman, I must yield, of
course, even if I desire not to.
59
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Certainly.MR. GOMPERS: And I yield, and I hope I may do so
gracefully. May I suggest this to Your Honors, that
after the witness has said that he has no dissent to
express from the declaration, he then said further that
upon this very subject we need education from himand his associates.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : I have passed upon that.
MR. GOMPERS: Do you know Mr. William English
Walling?MR. HILLQUIT: Slightly.MR. GOMPERS: How slightly?MR. HILLQUIT: I have met him, spoken to him
several times. I am not intimately acquainted with
him.
MR. GOMPERS: But you know of him?MR. HILLQUIT: Oh, yes.
MR. GOMPERS: And you have read some of his
writings, have you not?
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes.
MR. GOMPERS: He is a member of the Socialist
Party?MR. HILLQUIT : He surely was. Whether he is now
I don't know.MR. GOMPERS: You don't'know now?MR. HILLQUIT : No.MR. GOMPERS : Do you know that in the New York
Call on December n, 1909, he said: "The Socialist
Party has become a hissing and a by-word with the
actual wage earners of America. It is becoming the
party of two extremes: On the one side are a bunch
of intellectuals like myself and Spargo and Hunter and
Hillquit; on the other is a bunch of never-works,
demagogues and would-be intellectuals, a veritable
'lumpen proletariat.' The average wage earners, the
men who are really doing the class struggle, are out-
side. Above all else we must have the union man.No one has denounced the efforts of the American
60
Federation of Labor more than I, but I am forced to
recognize that it comes much nearer to representingthe working class than the Socialist^ Party, and unless
we are able to shape our policy and our organization so
as to meet the demands and incarnate the position of
the workers, we will have failed of our mission." Doyou assent or dissent from the expression of Mr. Wall-
ing on that subject?
MR. HILLQUIT: With a few qualifications I assent
But first a correction, Mr. Gompers. You got mixed
up in your text somewhat. That is not an expression
by Walling. It is an expression by A. M. Simons,contained in a private letter to Walling, which Wallingpublished, although he had no business to. It is a
heart-to-heart talk, such as perhaps you might have
with an intimate friend on the A. F. of L. Board. 1
believe the reference to the "lumpen proletariat' is
grossly exaggerated, and that the reference to the "in-
tellectuals" is somewhat unjust. I think, however,that the statement that the Socialist Party must seek
the support of the working class of this country is
absolutely correct. The Socialist Party has been work-
ing along these lines for a number of years and has
so far succeeded fairly well. I suppose it will succeed
still more.
MR. GOMPERS : Do you recall a statement appearingin the New York Call of November 28th, 1909, made
by Mr. John Spargo, in which he said: "In further-
ance of the ambitions of a few men of small minds,and even smaller hearts, the whole movement is being
dragged into the mire, and the heart of every sincere
Socialist sickens with shame at the spectacle. Nodepth of degradation and dishonor has been reached byany capitalist party in its sordid strivings, which has
not also been attained by American Socialists." ?
MR. HILLQUIT : I recall that passage. I think it is a
bit rhetorical, but we always do practice self-criti-
61
cism, which results in a process of purification and
improvement.MR. GOMPERS: What was the attitude of the So
cialist Party then in existence toward the AmericanLabor Union formed by Mr. Debs?MR. HILLQUIT: The American Labor Union, if you
will permit me to correct you, was not formed by Mr.Debs. The Socialist Party's attitude toward the
American Labor Union was no different than its atti-
tude toward the I. W. W. The Socialist Party as
such did not take any sides in the quarrel between the
American Labor Union and the A. F. of L.
MR. GOMPERS: Did not Mr. Debs and his associ-
ates of the American Railway Union form the American Labor Union?MR. HILLQUIT : They did not.
MR. GOMPERS: Are you quite sure of that?
MR. HILLQUIT : I am, and I am surprised that youare not. The American Labor Union was formed bythe United Association of the Hotel and Restaurant
Employees, the Western Federation of Miners, andthe Western Labor Union at a convention of those
organizations.* The American Railway Union
merged with the Brotherhood of the Co-operativeCommonwealth which published a paper of its own,and later developed into the Social Democracy ofAmerica.
MR. GOMPF.RS: This morning you expressed viewswhich seemed to indicate that you believed in the con-
stant, gradual, material improvement of the conditions
of the working people as a thing which should be en-
couraged for the attainment of the ultimate ends of
your party or your philosophy?MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir.
MR. GOMPERS: Is it your opinion, then, that the
declaration is true, that "the present social system is
'Held in Denver in 1902.
62
inevitably converting the workers into a propertyless
proletariat, possessing nothing but their labor powers ;
is productive of an increase of misery, oppression, en-
slavement, debasement and exploitation"?
MR. HILLQUIT: Why, I think the passage in the
main is correct. It was written about 50 years ago
by Marx. It has been the subject of many contro-
versies, the question turning on just what he meant by"misery, debasement," and so on. But it is the gen-eral consensus of Socialist opinion that the number of
the propertyless class of workers is on the increase,and that the working class, on the whole, gets pro-
portionately a lesser share of the general national
wealth from year to year. At the same time there is
a noticeable and absolute improvement in the condi-tion of at least a large section of the working class.
MR. GOMPERS: In your explanation as to the con-dition of society under Socialism, you spoke of theindustries which have practically become socialized
and may be taken over in their operation and control,and you said that smaller industries, with smaller
tools, owned by the individual, would not come undercollective control and ownership
1 and management, butthat they would be left to the individual did you not?
MR. HILLQUIT: I said, there is nothing in the So-cialist program requiring collective ownership of
purely individual industries, not based upon hiring or
exploitation of labor.
MR. GOMPERS: How long since has that distinction
been made as between all the means of production anddistribution and the definition which you now give?MR. HILLQUIT : A very long time ago, Mr. Gompers.MR. GOMPERS: I mean, authoritatively?MR. HILLQUIT: I think authoritatively there never
has been any different conception. It was first clearly
expressed, as I believe, by Karl Kautsky, about a
dozen years ago, or so.
MR. GOMPERS: How long has it been since that
63
declaration has been made by the American Socialist
Party?MR. PIiLLQuix: There has not, at any time, to my
knowledge, been a specific or formal declaration made;but my understanding is that it has always been the
theoretical conception of the American Socialist Party.MR. GOMPER.S: The American Socialist Party has
always declared, until quite recently, for the national-
ization of all of the means of production and distribu-
tion, has it not?MR. HILLQUIT : I don't think the word "all" occurs
in any authoritative exposition of the principles ofthe Party.
MR.. GOMPERS: But by the omission of the word"all," and without any qualification, nevertheless noother inference could be drawn from that declara-
tion, could it?
MR. HILLQUIT: I would not say that was true.
MR. GOMPERS : Suppose I should say that this court
room belonged to the State of New York or the Cityof New York, it would not be necessary for me to
say that all the entire court room belongedMR. HILLQUIT: No, not in that connection, but I
should think that the 'comparison is somewhat unfor-tunate. If I should say that Mr. Gompers can beheard by the people in the audience, it would not
necessarily imply that he could be heard by all.
MR. GOMPERS: For instance, if you put it this
way: "The Socialist Party demands the nationaliza-
tion of the means of production and distribution."
The absence of the word "all" there would not at nil
minimize the extent, would it?
MR. HILLQUIT: In my conception of it, Mr. Gom-pers, and I can give you only my understanding of it,
I should say that the Socialist Party has always stood
for the collective ownership of social tools of produc-tion and distribution.
MR. GOMPERS: As a matter of fact, isn't it so?
We need not quibble
64
MR. HILLQUIT: (Interrupting) : I am not quibbling.
MR. GOMPERS: Isn't it so that it has been onlywithin the past two or three years that the Socialist
Party has made that distinction?
MR. HILLQUIT : No, Mr. Gompers. You may havenoticed it within the past two or three years, but the
entire Socialist philosophy has always been based uponthe conception that the tools of the work have becomesocial in character and consequently Socialism alwaysdealt with the social tool and never with the
individual.
MR. GOMPERS: I refer to the declaration excludingany private property.MR. HILLQUIT: There was no such exclusion ?.t
any time. Private property in articles of consumptionhas always been recognized and sanctioned by the
Socialists; and as to the means of production, it is
not my understanding and I think I am more or
less conversant with the literature on the subjectthat it ever was intended to embrace within that cate-
gory the individual tool or the individual industry.
MR,. GOMPERS : Take, for instance, the boot andshoe industry. There are shoemakers and bootmakerswho are engaged in artistic shoemaking and make the
whole shoe, using but few tools. If the boot and shoe
industry became socialized, and owned and controlled
collectively, would there be a seperate arrangement for
the artistic boot and shoemaker?MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, I don't see
any reason in the world why the artistic boot and shoe-maker should not continue to be an artistic boot andshoemaker under Socialism. I don't believe therewould be any socialization of the individual shoe; at
least, I should not wear it, if it were.
MR. GOMPERS: The answer, of course, is quite
germane.MR. HILLQUIT: To the question.MR. GOMPERS: Do you regard it as a fact that in
65
the United States "the bourgeoisie has converted the
position of the lawer, the priest, the poet, the man ofscience into its paid wage laborers"?
MR. HILLQUIT: Why, it is somewhat exaggerated,but substantially true. I can speak for the lawyers.(Laughter.)MR. GOMPERS: Do you believe that the statement,
quoting again from Socialist authority: "Chattel
slavery is dead, a greater slavery has grown up in its
place. Wage slavery is so much greater than chattel
slavery as the white people in this country are morenumerous than the black people"?MR. HILLQUIT : I think that is substantially correct.
MR. GOMPERS: Do you agree with the estimate that
in the United States the number of men out of workare more than five million?
MR. HILLQUIT : At some time or another. I believe
the census of 1900 gives the number of partially un-
employed during the year at 6,000,000.
MR. GOMPERS: Which authority?MR. HILLQUIT: The 1900 census. The figure is
based on the total of workers unemployed during all
or part of the year.MR. GOMPERS: Do you regard the Communist
Manifesto of Marx and Engels as on the whole cor-
rect, as correct to-day as ever?
MR. HILLQUIT: That was published in 1848.MR. GOMPERS: Do you regard the general prin-
ciples laid down in that manifesto as on the wholeas correct to-day as ever?
MR. HILLQUIT: The general principles, yes. Thedetails, perhaps not.
MR. GOMPERS : Do you accept or repudiate the term,or the idea of communism?MR. HILLQUIT: The term "Communist" as used
in the Communist Manifesto signified something en-
tirely different from what it signifies now. What the
authors of the Communist Manifesto meant by the
66
term "Communist" is what we mean to-day by the
term "Socialist."
MR. GOMPERS: I should judge from the testimony
you gave this morning that you do not accept the
theory of cataclysm as a means to bring about the
co-operative commonwealth ?
MR. HILLQUIT: I do not believe in the cataclysm
theory.MR. GOMPERS: Your answers would indicate that
the Socialist predictions of several years ago have
scarcely been verified, including the inability of anygovernment, either to destroy or regulate the corpor-ate existence of capital, such as trusts?
MR. HILLQUIT: The question is, whether I admitthat this prediction was wrong?MR. GOMPERS: I simply want, if I can, to have you
verify, or rather, re-state, by yes or no, or in such a
way as you may care to whether there is to be in our
society an evolutionary continuous improvement in the
condition of the workers up to the point that may be
regarded as a goal or a constant improvement ?
MR. HILLQUIT: You asked two question, there,
Mr. Gompers. As to the ability of the Governmentto regulate or destroy business corporations or trusts,
I still believe that the Government is quite incapableof doing so.
As to the process of gradual improvement, I be-
lieve in it. But whether such process of gradual im-
provement will eventually lead up to Socialism with-out violent, social or political disturbance, or civil
war, I don't know.MR. GOMPERS: Do you not see a departure from
Marx' conception in the development of the jointstock company?MR. HILLQUIT: Decidedly not. On the contrary a
verification of his theory of concentration of capital.
MR,. GOMPERS: Then you think that the growth and
ownership of the joint stock company is a refutation
67
of the theory of the development of the capitalist
classes, or Marx' theory of the capitalist class?
MR. HILLQUIT: I don't think so. On the contraryI think, as I said, it is a verification of it.
MR. GOMPERS: Do you regard the population of the
I'nited States, as divided into a small master class
and a vast servant class?
MR. HILLQUIT: No such conception was ever ex-
pressed by any authoritative Socialist author. Whatyou read in the Communist Manifesto is an assertion
that the population tends to develop into such twoclasses. That condition has by far not been reached
in the United States.
MR. GOMPERS : Do you believe that the children
of the working class are doomed to ignorance, drudg-ery, toil and darkened lives in the United States?
MR. HILLQUIT: Very largely, Mr. Gompers.MR. GOMPERS: When you say that we have
secured, or are securing, a material improvement in
the general conditions of the working people, and the
people generally, it does not conform to your latest
answer. \Yhicii is true, your latest answer or youranswer this morning?MR. HILLQUIT: Both are absolutely true. We have
improved conditions somewhat, but our achievementsare as nothing compared with what is still to come.I presume that, as president of the American Federa-tion of Labor, you know that we still have the evil of
child labor with us in an abominably large extent.
MR. GOMTERS: I have been admonished that I must
not argue with you, and I have no desire to do so.
But I want to call your attention to the fact that yousaid just now that you agreed largely with this state-
ment : "The children of the working class are doome-i
to ignorance, drudgery, toil and darkened lives." If
you say that this is a fact, how does it conform with
your statement this morning as to the general gradual
68
improvement of the conditions of the working class,
which, of course, includes the children?
MR. HILLQUIT: If you will read the document fur-
ther, you will get your answer. The children of the
working class are doomed to the lives described un-
less something very radical is done to relieve themfrom it.
MR. GOMPERS: Do you believe, Mr. Hillquit, in col-
lective bargaining between workmen and their em-
ployers ?
MR. HILLQUIT: I do.
MR. GOMPERS: During the pendency of an agree-ment, it may prevent workmen from honorably askingfor an increase in wages in the event of industrial
conditions improving. It also has the tendency, doesit not, to prevent reduction in wages in the event ofa falling off in the trade ?
MR. HILLQUIT: I think it does both, but the prin-
cipal consideration, in my mind, is that the practice of
collective bargaining causes the workers to unke andto act collectively, and the employers likewise. The
struggles between them are thus better organized. It
also tends to strengthen the solidarity of the workers.
MR. GOMPER,S: Do you know that several sections
of the Socialist Party and labor papers, their official
papers, encouraged and aided a small organizationknown as the United Boot and Shoe Makers, in op-
position to the Boot and Shoe Workers' International
Union ?
MR. HILLQUIT: I think you are going back againto the old days of the Socialist Labor Party. Is that
when the struggle occurred?
MR. GOMPERS: I asked you whether you had no-
ticed it within these past three months?
MR. HILLQUIT : No, sir.
MR. GOMPERS : It could have occurred without yourknowing it?
69
MR. HILLQUIT: Oh, yes. I cannot follow or con-
trol the 300 Socialist papers we have in this country.MR. GOMPERS: Is it not true, Mr. Hillquit, that the
radical movement in Europe has been greatly changedin the past 20 years?MR. HILLQUIT: You mean the Socialist movement?MR. GOMPERS: Let me put the question in th<V
form : Is it or is it not a fact that the radical move-ment in Europe has been greatly changed in the past20 years, mainly in these respects I want to read the
questions and then if you should desire that I read
them separately, I shall be very glad to do so.
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir.
MR. GOMPERS: I. In the general recognition of
the necessity to work for democratic rule as the firbt
step for the welfare of the masses.
Would you prefer to answer now?MR. HILLQUIT: I would rather hear all questions.MR. GOMPERS: 2. Consequently, in concentrating
political efforts on obtaining uniform suffrage for
male citizens, with just representation in legislativebodies, and an influence in administration proportion-ate to the powers of the people in general.
3. In conducting the struggles of the masses in
European countries to obtain rights long exercised bythe citizens of the United States.
4. In abandoning the theory of the inevitable social
cataclysm predicted by Marx, and falling into line with
the labor movement of Great Britain and the United
States, the first step being toward trade union organ-ization, which in Germany has come to dominate all
great branches of the social movement of the masses,in the adoption and energetic promotion of the plan of
voluntary co-operation, the necessary function of
which is independence of the state.
If you prefer, I shall halt here.
MR,. HILLQUIT: You may. The Socialist movf-ment abroad has not changed or modified its program
70
within the last 20 years. It has changed its practicalmethods somewhat. It always does. It learns from
experience. It is not any more conservative to-daythan it was 20 years ago. It has struggled for politi-
cal rights and universal suffrage ever since the ex-
istence of an organized Socialist movement in Europe.Some of its political demands are for rights which wein the United States already possess. Others are for
rights which we do not possess, as for instance, pro-
portional representation.
On the economic field, the Socialist parties in
Europe are, as a rule, considerably in advance of the
labor movement here, for the simple reason that theyhave accomplished more than we have accomplishedhere. The co-operation of the Socialist parties with
the trade unions is by no -manner of means a novelfeature. It always has existed, and, in Continental
Europe, most of the trade unions were directly cre-
ated, organized and called into life by the Socialist
parties. The German trade union movement does not
dominate the labor movement of Germany. It is co-
ordinate with the Socialist movement, except that the
voice of Social Democracy is somewhat more author-
itative in the joint counsels of the two wings of the
labor movement.
What else have you there, Mr. Gompers? Haveyou any other questions that I have not answered?
MR. GOMPERS: I want to ask you: You say that
the demands of the organized workers of Germanyare far in advance of those of the United States. Arethe material conditions of the working people of Ger-
many better than they are in the United States?
MR. HILLQUIT: I think they are decidedly better,
because they are more secure. The worst feature ofthe labor conditions in America is the worker's in-
security of existence, the dread of the morrow, andI think that has been largely obviated in Germanythrough a comprehensive system of social insurance,
71
which takes care of the workers in case of sickm .
permanent disahility, accident and old age.The problem of unemployment is also not as acute
among German workmen as it is among Americanworkmen. And, taking it all in all, I think that the
German workman is considerably better off than the
American workman.MR. GOMPERS : Supposing the representatives of the
German workmen disagree with that view, would youthink you would have cause to revise your judgment?MR. HILLQUIT: No, sir. That alone would not
cause me to revise my judgment, because it would
imply that those German labor representatives had a
better knowledge of the conditions of workers, both
in Germany and the United States, and until I weresure of that, I would not revise my judgment.MR. GOMPERS: Have you read Mr. Legien's book
which he has recently published?MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir.
MR. GOMPERS: As to the rights of German workers,do you know that public meetings, when held in Ger-
many, must be under police authority?MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir; all political meetings of
any kind and it is very objectionable, but it is not
half as badMR. GOMPERS: Now, you are arguing with me.
MR,. HILLQUIT: No, sir, I am answering.MR. GOMPERS : I am asking you as to the conditions
in Germany.MR. HILLQUIT: It is a broad question, Mr. Gom-
pers, and I cannot always answer just so as to please
you. Your question was about the conditions of the
German workman with reference to the right of suf-
frage and free speech, was it not ?
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: My answer to that is, that in Ger-
many the workers, not as workers, but as citizens, are
subject to certain police supervision in all of their
72
political meetings. And I say, with all that, they ex-
ercise on the whole, greater freedom of speech and
greater personal security than the workers here. Ger-
many has never had a case like Colorado or West
Virginia.MR. GOMPERS : Do you know that in Germany they
permit no language to be spoken at any meeting other
than the German language ?
MR. HILLQUIT: I don't think they know any other
language but German. But, really, Mr. GompersMR. GOMPERS : I suppose that we, all of us, can be
facetious, if we want to.
MR. HILLQUIT: Occasionally.MR. GOMPERS: But I asked you this question,
whether it is a fact?
MR. HILLQUIT: I understand that the police au-
thorities are present at every political meeting in Ger-
many, and have the right to close the meeting in case
of certain utterances, and that for that purpose theymust be familiar with the language the speaker uses.
The German police have the right to prohibit the useof foreign languages at public meetings.
MR. GOMPERS : I agree with you in your remarksas to Colorado, but I do not as to the German propo-sition. Do you know that 'the German trade -unions
are forbidden by law to deal with any political
question ?
MR. HILLQUIT: Not any political question, as far
as my knowledge goes. I know that the trade unions
do deal with political questions in Germany. Theysupport the Socialist Party of Germany officially.
MR. GOMPERS: If, for instance, I say to you, sir,
that quite recently the American Federation of Laborasked a representative of the German trade unionmovement to transmit a communication for Interna-
tional Peace to other countries, and the officer of that
organization could not comply with the request with-
out violating the law and endangering the existence
73
of the organization, do you regard that as evidence
that larger liberties have been attained in Germanythan in the United States?
MR,. HILLQUIT: I would not regard those instances
as evidences of political liberty by any manner of
means.MR. GOMPERS: Would it not be an infringement
upon the liberty of the German workmen, the Ger-man citizen?
MR. HILLQUIT: It would be.
MR. GOMPERS: Supposing I tell you that actuallyoccurred ?
MR. HILLQUIT: I will be very much interested.
MR. GOMPERS: I will tell you that it did.
MR. HILLQUIT: I thank you.MR. GOMPERS: In Germany there is considerable
immigration from surrounding countries, particularlyfrom Italy, and I think the Balkans, this last year or
so. The police have encouraged employers to importstrike breakers into Germany. The police have giventhem permits which are required to be renewed peri-
odically, and when one of those men becomes con-
verted to the cause of the workmen on strike, his
permit is revoked, and he is deported to his country.Do you see the influence that this must have uponthe class struggle among the workmen in Germany?MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir, decidedly.MR. GOMPERS: Inasmuch as the speaking of a for-
eign language at any public meeting is forbidden, do
you see the effect it must have upon poor workmenwho have been brought into Germany and held in that
benighted position?MR. HILLQUIT: I see that, Mr. Gompers.MR. GOMPERS: You would not icgard that as a
very great liberty?MR. HILLQUIT: I would infer from that that they
still have capitalists in Germany, also.
MR. GOMPERS: Of course, we have not forgotten
74
that fact I don't suppose we can be permitted to for-
get that or that you will permit us to forget that fact.
I do not want you, Mr. Hillquit, to imagine that bymy questions I am making comparisons that are in-
viduous to any other country, or that I am purblindto the wrongs or the outrages committed here, but I
would ask you, as the authorized representative of the
Socialist Party, to bear in mind that when you speakof greater liberty and better conditions of the Germanworkmen as the result of the movement of Germany'sworkmen, that you ought to have these facts in mind,and I ask you whether you have?
MR,. HILLQUIT: I have this in mind, that when I
spoke of better conditions, it was a question of ma-terial conditions. That was what you asked. Whenyou go into the question of political institutions, and
political liberty, you must not forget that you deal
with Prussia, which is a Kingdom, and Germany,which is an Empire, and the United States, which is
a Republic. But I do wish to reiterate the statement
that with the Socialist representatives in the Reichstag,in of them, and the Socialist trade unions in Ger-
many, the unspeakable outrages we have 'had here
and I do not have to mention them again could not
have occurred in Germany. That is all.
MR. GOMPERS: Haven't they occurred in Germany?MR. HILLQUIT: They have not.
MR. GOMPERS: The right of meeting is forbidden,and the workmen yield. When they do that there is
no conflict?
MR. HILLQUIT: They have not killed women andchildren in labor conflicts in Germany, and the Gov-ernment of Germany has not tolerated it. When anassault was committed on the part of some soldiers
upon one crippled workman, the entire nation wasaroused, and the Socialist faction in the Reichstagalmost brought about the fall of the ministry on that
account.
75
I
MR. GOMPERS: The incident to which you refer hasan entirely different application, and the person in-
volved was a public official and not a workman.
MR. HILLQUIT: A shoemaker, sir.
MR. GOMPERS : Isn't this the fact, that in the United
States, the workman having become impregnated withthe fundamental principles of liberty, propose to exert
those rights and, as compared to the willingness of
workmen of other countries, to yield rather than to
assert
MR. HILLQUIT: It is not a fact, because the work-men you refer to have not had time to become im-
pregnated with any so-called fundamental principlesof American liberty. They were Bohemians, Hun-
garians, Italians, Austrians and foreigners of all kinds,a very short time in" the country. The attitude of the
militia they began resenting when they began beingburned alive and clubbed to death.
MR. GOMPERS: There is nothing in resenting a
wrong and an outrage. Apart from the establish-
ment of the Co-operative Commonwealth wherein
does the purposes of your movement practically dif-
fer from the social reform movement which is effect-
ing corrections and improvements in the present social
system, and which aims at complete social justice, anda maximum liberty and happiness for mankind, such
as the American labor movement? The Americantrade union movement, the American Federation of
Labor ?
MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, I am not trying to
establish any differences between the Socialist move-ment and the labor movement. On the contrary, it
seems to me, you have been trying to establish them,and vainly. The Socialists see a difference in degreeonly, but they see absolutely no antagonism betweenthe activities of the Socialist movement and the eco-
nomic labor movement. We claim that they go verywell hand in hand; that each of them can exist and
76
thrive with the support of the other, and we are per-
fectly willing to lend our part of the support, Mr.
Gompers. Whatever criticism we have of leaders or
methods are purely in the nature of friendly sugges-tions, and we are not here, or anywhere else, to criti-
cise the organized lahor movement of this country,
particularly as against the public at large. We con-
sider ourselves as a part of th'e labor movement.MR. GOMPERS: Now, Mr. Hillquit, permit me to
say this may I, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : If it is any statement other
than a question, I wish you would defer it until suchtime as you take the witness stand, Mr. Gompers.MR. GOMPERS : What is your opinion, Mr. Hillquit,
upon the general strike for the subversion of the
present system?MR,. HILLQUIT: I think it is Utopian. I do not
believe it is a feasible or realizable proposition at all.
Whenever the workers of this country are ready for
a general strike in order to change the present system,
they will be intelligent enough and sufficiently well
organized to change the system directly by legislativemethods.MR. GOMPERS: Legislative methods?MR. HILLQUIT: If they are strong enough to win
out by a general strike, they will be strong enough to
take hold of the machinery of government, and effect
the change of system without a general strike.
MR. GOMPERS : What do you mean by legislationthe enactment of law ?
MR. HILLQUIT: The enactment of a law, a decree,an ordinance, or any other mandate which can beexecuted.
MR. GOMPERS: Expropriating all who may ownproperty and turning it over to the Government or the
Co-operative Commonwealth ?
MR. HILLQUIT : I have not said, "Expropriate." It
may be accomplished by method of purchase.
77
MR. GOMI-ERS: Well, say take hold-
MR. HILLQUIT (Interrupting): Take hold takecontrol and possession of.
MR. GOMPERS: Well, by revolution?
MR. HILLQUIT : Oh, I suppose it would probably becalled a revolution anyhow, but it may be a very peace-ful one, I don't know.MR. GOMPERS: By confiscation?
MR. HILLQUIT: Not as we are inclined at present.At present we are in the market for buying out the
capitalists.
MR,. GOMPERS: By compensation?MR. HILLQUIT: By compensation. However, again,
Mr. Gompers, I do not guarantee the acts of the next
generation. The capitalists may become naughty andthe people may be displeased with them and take
things, just as we took the negro slaves from their
owners.
MR. GOMPERS: You have an idea that the taking
might be for compensation ?
MR. HILLQUIT: It might be, yes.
MR. GOMPERS: Have you an idea how such a propo-sition could be financed?
MR. HILLQUIT: How it could be financed? Wehaven't reached that point yet, Mr. GompersMR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : No?MR. HILLQUIT (Continuing) : I suppose that if
paid, it will be paid in some Government securities.
MR. GOMPERS: I take it that you are not in favorof what is generally known as State Socialism?
MR. HILLQUIT : I am not.
MR. GOMPERS: Not even as a step towards a demo-cratic Socialism?
MR. HILLQUIT: If it were State Socialism, it wouldnot be a step towards democratic Socialism.
MR. GOMPERS: Are not the present differences
within the Socialist parties in the United States sig-
78
nificant of fatal differences in the management of a
revolutionary society?MR. HILLQUIT: No, there are no fatal differences,
Mr. Gompers. We have some differences of opinionwithin the Socialist Party, sometimes lively ones. I
hope you' have them in the American Federation of
Labor. But we, nevertheless, manage to keep our
organization and to work for a common purpose. I
presume there will be strong differences of opinion,and some fights, even under Socialism. I should not
want it to be otherwise.
MR, GOMPERS: I mean as to liberty. Under So-
cialism will there be liberty of individual action, and
liberty in the choice of occupation and refusal to work ?
MR. HILLQUIT: Plenty of it, Mr. Gompers.MR. GOMPERS : I take it that you have no apprehen-
sion that under a democratic Socialist management,the administrators could or would attempt to exploitthe workers under them, and one set of laborers would
exploit another set; the lazy office-holders, the indus-
trious artisans ; the strong and bolder, the weaker andmore modest ones, and the failures, the economicallysuccessful.
MR. HILLQUIT : I think it quite likely that there will
be some abuses of that kind. Even under Socialism
men will still remain human, no doubt. But, Mr.
Gompers, we have every reason to believe that theywill be small and insignificant as compared with pres-ent abuses, for the system will be based on a greater
democracy and self-government, and will thus providefor proper means of remedy. Furthermore, there
will be no great incentive to corruption such as wehave in private gain under capitalism.MR. GOMPERS: In the event that the Co-operative
Comonwealth should be established, taking it for
granted for the sake of the question, that it is possible,it would have for its present purpose the highest ma-terial and social and moral improvement of the con-
79
dition of the workers attainable at that time, wouldit not?
MR. HILLQUIT: I think so.
MR. GOMPERS: And would there be-any higher aimafter that is established?
MR. HILLQUIT: Oh, there will be plenty more.There will be new aims coming every day.MR. GOMPERS: Still more?MR. HILLQUIT: Still further.
MR. GOMPERS: Still higher?MR. HILLQUTT: Still higher.MR. GOMPERS: Now, if that is so, isn't it a fact that
it is not at all a goal, but simply a transitory ideal?
MR,. HILLQUIT : Sure. It is our goal to-day. It is a
transitory goal. There will be a movement toward a
higher goal to-morrow.
MR. GOMPERS: In other words, you think even if
that condition of affairs should be possible, it, like the
conditions of to-day, is transitory and continually tend
ing toward improvement ?
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes.
MR. GOMPERS : And not a goal ?
MR. HILLQUIT: Not an ultimate goal. There is nosuch thing as an ultimate social goal.
MR. GOMPERS: In the Socialist state, would youhave each worker rewarded by the full product of his
labor, or by an apportionment of the product accord-
ing to his demands? In other words, would the rule
be, to each according to his deeds, or to each accord-
ing to his needs?
MR. HILLQUIT: I think neither, strictly speaking. I
don't suppose his Socialist regime would at once radi-
cally change established standards of compensation.I think it would have to grow up and be built up onthe existing basis. And I think it will largely be a
system of salaries and wages, as nearly as possible, in
proportion to the usefulness of the service but they
80
will be larger than they are to-day, because they will
include the profits now paid to the idle capitalists.
MR. GOMPKRS: So, as a matter of fact, then, if the
Co-operative Commonwealth is not a goal, is not an
end, then why term it Socialism, and why not term it
the ordinary, natural development of the human race
to a higher and better state of society ?
MR. HILLQUIT: We rrmy term it the ordinary and
natural development of the human race to the pointof Socialism. In other words, Mr. Gompers, wedivide the history of mankind pretty arbitrarily into
certain periods. We speak of the period of Slavery,the period of Feudalism, the period of Capitalism.Now we foresee the next steo in development, andcall it the period of Socialism. We cannot draw a
line of demarcation where it starts or where it van-
ishes. It will certainly not be permanent. There will
be something superior to it some time. In the mean-time every stage of development is superior to the
preceding stage; and by the same token as Capitalismis superior to Feudalism, Socialism is superior to
Capitalism. That is all.
MR. GOMPERS: You simply apply it as a term, andnot an end? .
MR. HILLQUIT : Not an ultimate end in social de-
velopment, no.
CHAIRMAN WT
ALSH : Any members of the Commis-sion desire to ask Mr. Hillquit any questions?COMMISSIONER BALLARD: I should like to ask him a
question or two.
CHAIRMAN WALSH: Mr. Ballard, Mr. Hillquir,
would like to ask you some questions.COMMISSIONER BALLARD: You were speaking of the
conditions of Socialism and of the conditions of the
workers under it being different from the present. If
we had an ideal condition of Socialism, would not
there be some of the people who would be workers,
some of the people who would still be managers?
81
MR. HILLQUIT: They would all be workers. Somewould be engaged in management and supervision,some in manual \vork and some in the mental work.No doubt there would be a division of functions.
MR. BALLARD: But you would not allow any, nomatter what their division was, to acquire or have
larger advantages than the lowest worker?MR. HILLQUIT: I would -not put it that way. We
would not permit anybody to enjoy a workless income
by virtue of his private ownership of the tool which
society needs for its wealth production. But we cer-
tainly recognize that human nature is diversified ; that
we have different attitudes and different abilities. Thework would be organized and the functions divided
COMMISSIONER BALLARD: And different rewards?MR. HILLQUIT: And different rewards, no doubt,
would be allowed for services of differing importanceat least for some time.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD: You spoke this morningof the American Federation of Labor and of its beingsomewhat antiquated in its methods. Could you, in
a short time, tell us what changes you would suggestthat should come over the American Federation of
Labor in order to make it more suitable to the needs
of the present time?
MR. HILLQUIT: I think those changes are corning
anyhow. The changes, to my mind, are these: Thetendencies towards closer alliance and amalgamationof the organizations in kindred trades and crafts. I
think the political attitude of the American Federa-
tion of Labor also stands in need of a change. TheAmerican Federation of Labor does not take advan-
tage of the great inherent political powers residingwithin that organization. I believe that by throwingitself on one chimera after another, and by followingthe policy of "punishing friends and rewardingenemies," it dissipates a good deal of the very great
power which the organized workers of all other coun-
82
tries use with excellent effect ; and I think the direction
of further progress of the American Federation of
Labor lies in the line of greater solidarity within
the organization, and in the political independence of
the workers.
COMMISSIONER HARRIMAN : I want to ask a questionor two there, Mr. Hillquit. It has been partially asked
by Mr. Ballard. but I did not quite get the answer.
Isn't it inevitable that some men, who have superior
mentality and driving force, will always get ahead of
other men? And if that is so, how are you going to
prevent the capitalist class from forging to the front
and getting into power?
MR. HILLQUIT: Mrs. Harriman, there is no objec-tion to a person of superior quality or merit gettingahead of the man of inferior merit, or getting largerreward or compensation. The Socialist objection is
to the men of inferior quality or intellect gettingahead of the brainy man by reason of his ownershipo'f the tools, by reason of his capital. To-day, anyperson who happens to be lucky enough to be born to
wealth and who inherits a good deal of stocks and
bonds, may be devoid of any brains, of any intellect,
but will get a princely income nevertheless, while a
foreman or other employe may be a very much wiser
man, and yet get a mere pittance. That is the So-cialist objection.
COMMISSIONER HARRIMAN: Then you do not objectto the whole capitalist class only to individuals of the
class who are wealthy ?
MR. HILLQUIT: No, we object to the capitalist class
as a class that derives its income without work fromthe ownership of capital. If any member of the capi-talist class can or will render useful services to so-
ciety, he is entitled to compensation for such services ;
but we object to any compensation being given to himfor his good fortune of being born to wealth and to
83
his getting dividends, whether he is good or b:t<l.
capable, or incapable, productive or otherwise.
COMMISSIONER LENNON: Mr. Hillquit, I want youto answer a question a little more elaborately than youhave, or than I have understood you. I understood
you to say that the coming of Socialism must be
through growth, through evolution, through the de-
velopment of the human race to higher and better con-
ditions, and that the workers must strive to attain
better conditions, so far as their industrial life is con-
cerned, and social life, and their mental activity.
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LENNON : Then you do not believe
in the theory that you must grind a man's nose to the
extreme before he will rebel and help to bring aboutbetter conditions ?
MR. HILLQUTT: By no manner of means; just the
contrary.COMMISSIONER LENNON: Has that not been the
theory expressed by a very large number of Socialists
up to recent times?
MR. HILLQUIT: It has not. The distinguishingfeature between the Socialists, or as we may term it
more accurately, the Social Democrats, and the Anar-
chists, is that the Anarchists adopt as their motto, "Theworse, the better." Whereas, the Socialists' motto is,
"The better, the better."
COMMISSIONER BALLARD: I would like to ask you,if you please, one other question. As I gather, youwant the tools to be owned by the commonwealth.Would you allow any man by his own efforts, to ac-
quire property, and allow him to enjoy the use of
that himself?
MR,. HILLQUIT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD: Would you require that
his children should start out the same as any other
person's children, or would you allow him to passon to them the dollars and cents that he had acquired ?
84
MR. HILLQUIT: In other words, would we allow
inheritance under Socialism? Personally I think weprobably would. Understand, I have no warrant to
speak for the future, but under Socialism there wouldbe no private ownership of industries, machinery, or
any other means of exploiting a fellow man. Therewould be private ownership only in the means of con-
sumption and enjoyment. And society at large is not
very much concerned whether you consume your un-
productive savings in a year, or preserve them for ten
years later, or pass them on to your children. So
long as there is no possibility for the exploitation of
your fellow men by the ownership of the social tool
of the instrument of labor, so long I do not see any-
thing in the Socialist program that would prohibit the
use and enjoyment of private property and its trans-
mission to posterity.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON : Mr. Hillquit, yourtheory is then, I want to get myself straightenedMR. HILLQUIT: Get it.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON : In regard to this ques-tion started by Mrs. Harriman, your theory is that it
would be impossible, under the system, to misuse the
ability to accumulate, is that it ?
MR.- HILLQUIT : Yes, sir.
MR. GOMPERS: In other words the incentive wouldbe gone for dishonest exploitation?MR. HILLQUIT: Exactly, dishonest exploitation or
exploitation of any kind would become impossible.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON : I was simply accenting
exploitations with the other adjective.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : The Commission will nowstand adjourned until to-morrow morning, at ten
o'clock.
85
THIRD SESSION.
The Aims and Methods of the AmericanFederation of Labor
CHAIRMAN WALSH : The Commission will pleasecome to order. All right, Mr. Counsel, we are readyto proceed. /
Samuel Gompers, called as a witness, testified as
follows :
MR. THOMPSON : For the purposes of the record,
give us your name, address and occupation.MR. GOMPERS: Samuel Gompers, President of the
American Federation of Labor, residing in the Cityof New York. The headquarters of the AmericanFederation of Labor are at Washington, D. C.
MR. THOMPSON : How long, Mr. Gompers, have youbeen President of the American Federation of Labor?MR. GOMPERS: The American Federation of Labor
was formed in 1881, in Pittsburgh, when I was elected
its first president, and with the exception of two
terms, I have been President of the American Federa-
tion of Labor from that time.
MR. THOMPSON : Mr. Gompers, what trades, gen-
erally speaking, does the American Federation of
Labor include?
MR. GOMPERS: It covers practically the field of in-
dustry throughout the country.MR. THOMPSON : And there are no limitations as to
membership in it on the part of any body of workers'MR. GOMPERS : There are none. The only require-
ment, in so far as the American Federation is con-
cerned, is that it shall be composed of wage-earners.
86
MR. THOMPSON : If you can, Mr. Gompers, I wouldlike you to state the trades which are, as a matter of
fact, affiliated, and if you cannot, I would like to have
you submit that at some time to the Commission in
written form.
MR. GOMPERS: I have it in print, sir. The Amer-ican Federation of Labor prints a directory of all the
organizations affiliated with it and a list of the organ-izations which are not affiliated, but which are regardedby the American Federation of Labor as having com-mon policies and common polity, even though unaffi-
liated. I shall submit to you a copy of that directoryfor such purposes as you may desire.
MR. THOMPSON : Mr. Gompers, what is the form of
the organization of the American Federation of
Labor ?
MR. GOMPERS : The American Federation of Labor,as its name implies, is a federation. It is not, as it is
often mistakenly called, an organization, but a federa-
tion. It is a federation of organizations, each of whichhas its own government and determines its own needsand requirements in the light of the experience of the
members of the organization. This right in the be-
ginning has been proclaimed and has been adhered to
as consistently as possible in the history of the Amer-ican Federation of Labor. The Federation has no
power except that which is yielded and conceded to it
by the organizations which make up the Federation.
MR,. THOMPSON: Has the Federation of Labor gota Constitution, so-called, or Articles of Organization?MR. GOMPERS: It has.
MR. THOMPSON : Have you those p'resent, Mr.
Gompers ?
MR. GOMPERS: I have, sir.
MR. THOMPSON : Would you mind giving a copyto the Commission ?
MR. GOMPERS : Very glad to hand you one now, sir.
It is the Constitution as amended and adopted at the
87
last convention of the American Federation of Laborat Seattle, November, 1913.
1 can now, sir, give you a list of the affiliated organ-izations. There are 1 10 national and international
unions. There are five industrial departments. Thereare 42 State federations of labor. There are 623 citv
central bodies, or local city federations of the local
trades unions in the cities or towns, and there are 642local trade and federated unions, directly attached to
the American Federation of Labor as local unions, andwhose chartered existence to the American Federationof Labor will continue until such time as there will bea sufficient number in each particular calling or trade
so that a national union may be formed from these
locals, and set- up in business as a sovereign entity in
the trade or the calling or the industry covered by these
local unions. 1 hand you here, sir, a copy of this
directory, issued on January the I2th, 1914, containingthe names and addresses of the executive officers of the
National Trade Union, the department, the State fed-
eration, the central body or the local and federal labor
unions.
MR. THOMPSON : Mr. Gompers, how does the or-
ganization of the American Federation of Labor ex-
press itself? Does it hold convention, or has it gotofficers ?
MR. GOMPERS: It has.
MR. THOMPSON : What conventions does it hold, andwhat officers has it?
MR GOMPERS: The conventions are held annually,
and have for many years been held in the month of
November of each year. The officers consist of i
President, eight Vice-Presidents, a Secretary and a
Treasurer. The eleven officers constituting the Execu-
tive Council.
MR. THOMPSON : What jurisdiction and authority
does the convention have? Is it the supreme law-
making body of the Federation?
88
MR. GOMPERS: It is, to the fullest limit; and yet.
within the limitations of the authority and power con-
ceded to the Federation by the constituent or federated
sovereign organizations. If I may be permitted to use
the simile we have formed our American Federation
of Labor practically after the make-up of the Govern-ment of the United States, both in its Federal jurisdic-tion and State sovereignty, and in the system by. whichthe Federal Government exercises only such powersas are conceded to the United States by the States.
MR. THOMPSON: The right of secession, Mr. Gom-pers, however, remains with the local union, does it
not?
MR,. GOMPERS : With the affiliated unions. No onecan question the legal right within the Federation of
an organization to secede or withdraw. There is a
moral obligation, a spirit of comraderie, a spirit of
patriotism, a spirit of endeavoring to be of mutualassistance.
MR. THOMPSON : In case of the withdrawal or
secession of an international union which has been amHated with the American Federation of Labor, are anycoersive methods used by the American Federation
of Labor to cause the International Union to withdrawits secession ?
MR. GOMPERS : None, sir. As a matter of fact, the
Western Federation of Miners, for instance, withdrewfrom the American Federation of Labor about 1896.There were many efforts, many
'
suggestions made, to
have local unions belonging to the Western Federation
of Miners become part of the American Federation of
Labor as local unions. Not only was that discour-
aged, but the proposal was repudiated. And that is
equally true with national organizations which are not
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Wefeel that it ought to be the duty of every wage workerto belong to the union of his trade or his calling, andthat it is the duty of a local union or a trade or calling
89
to belong to the national or international union of that
trade and calling, and that it is equally the moral dutyof every organized body, bona fide organized body of
workmen, to belong to the American Federation of
Labor; but as to coersive methods, they are not em-
ployed.
MR. THOMPSON : Where an international union, Mr.
Gompers, has joined the American Federation of
Labor, and, at the convention resolutions are passed
relating to the trade of that international union, andthe international union refuses to carry out the order
of the convention, what is done then? What powerhas the American Federation of Labor?
MR. GOMPERS: It has no powers to enforce its
judgment. There is but one instance that I recall, in
which an organization, having agreed in advance to
abide by the decision of the Executive Council sitting
as a board of arbitration in a dispute between it andtwo other organizations, refused to abide when the
decision was rendered against it. It was then decidedthat the organization's charter, or its chartered rela-
tions with the American Federation of Labor wouldcease, and it did upon a certain date, but the organiza-tion, a year after, re-affiliated upon a declaration in
the convention to that effect.
MR. THOMPSON : And* the only actual power outsideof the moral power that the A. F. of L. has, is the
power of expulsion from membership, is that right ?
MR. GOMPERS: From membership in the AmericanFederation of Labor.
MR. THOMPSON: In the American Federation ofLabor?MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. And I ought to say, sir,
that that can only be accomplished when, upon roll
call at the convention of the American Federation of
Labor, two-thirds of the votes are cast for such revo-
cation of charter or disassociation of that organizationfrom the Federation.
90
MR. THOMPSON : Mr. Gompers, you have spokenabout the moral force of the American Federation of
Labor, and the allied organizations. Have you foundthat to be effective in the dealings of the international
union, one with another?
MR. GOMPERS : The most effective of any influence
and power. As a matter of fact, the experience of the
men in our movement has shown one fact standing out
in bold relief, that every movement of workmen whichhas had a system of government by which force or
compulsion have been attempted to be practiced, hasaroused the resentment and repudiation of the massesand has led to dissolution, while the efforts to exert
a moral influence upon the doings of men and ofwomen has led to magnificent results. In other wordsthe workers are just human beings. And when menare told that they must do something at the peril of
their organized existence, or that they must do some-
thing at the. peril of their personal existence, there is
a spirit aroused in them to say : "I shall try to do the
very contrary to that you command me to do." If menare appealed to their better judgment, their better
feeling, to a righteous course of conduct, they are
more ready to yield and to do the best that they can.
MR THOMPSON : Mr. Gompers, it is true that, un-
der the law of the land, no man, a member of no or-
ganization, has a right to force another to take certain
action. Isn't that true? I say, that no trade union
has a legal right to force a member to go on a strike,
for instance?
MR. GOMPERS: It has not.
MR,. THOMPSON : The sole force, then, that anyorganization in this country has, yours as well as
others, is the moral force to induce its members to
take concerted action, isn't that true?
MR. GOMPERS : Yes, sir, it is.
MR. THOMPSON : And that that rule applies in every
91
phase of labor organization, and particularly in yourorganization?MR. GOMPERS: Particularly in the Federation.
MR. THOMPSON: You have spoken, Mr. Gompers,of the officers and Executive Council of the AmericanFederation of Labor. You have told of its member-
ship. Where are its powers?MR. GOMTERS: They are an executive committee,
an administrative committee, if you please, for the
purpose of carrying into effect the conclusions reachedat the conventions, and to take such initiative in regardto any matter, particularly legislation upon which the
convention not had an opportunity to express itself;
to be helpful in any and in every way to any sphereof human activity, contributing to the protection, the
benefit, the welfare of the people, and particularly of
wage earners.
MR. THOMPSON : Are the powers of this council
set forth? '.
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. In the constitution, a copyof which I handed you, sir.
MR. THOMPSON : Now, Mr. Gompers, in a general
way, if you know, what is the total membership of the
unions affiliated or federated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor?MR. GOMPERS: In the report which the Executive
Council of the American Federation of Labor sub-
mitted to the Seattle convention last November, was
incorporated the report of the Secretary of the Federa-
tion, Mr. Frank Morrison, and his report is based uponthe reports made to his office by the affiliated organ-izations, and upon which these organizations pay the
per capita tax for their respective memberships.The average membership for the year 1913 that Mr.
Morrison reported and upon whom the per capita tax
was paid,was 1,996,004. I ought to explain that. Be-cause we aimed to avoid any padding of membershipby any organization in the last month just preceding
92
the conventions, and thereby increasing the votingpower of the delegates of any organization, in 1895the convention made the change that the representa-tion and voting power in the convention should not be
based, as theretofore, upon the last month's payment,but upon the average payment of the organizationduring the year.MR. THOMPSON : Have you made any comparison,
Mr. Gompers, between the growth of the membershipof the Federation of Labor and the growth of the
population of the United States?
MR. GOMPERS: I have made no accurate compari-son. The answer to the question needs elucidation.
The membership of the organizations affiliated withthe American Federation of Labor are composed of
adults, and they are principally men, but there are somewomen. Therefore, a comparison as to the member-
ship in the American Federation of Labor and the
population of the United States is hardly a fair com-
parison. If you figure five to a family, it is only fair
to assume that in the American Federation we haveabout eleven million.
MR. THOMPSON : My question was not directed to
that which you state, but directed to the proportion of
the increase whether the percentage of increase had
gone on with the increase in population. Now, if youdon't know, that is all right. We can figure that out.
MR. GOMPERS: I think the percentage of increase
of the American Federation of Labor has been greaterthan that of the population of the United States.
MR. THOMPSON : Mr. Gompers, now, will you pleasetell us in your own language the object and purposesof the American Federation of Labor?
MR. GOMPERS: Recognizing the fact that associated
effort is of greater influence and power to secure anygiven object over that of individual effort, the first
purpose to which the American Federation of Labordirects its efforts, is the encouragement or formation
93
of trade and labor unions, and the closer federation of
such unions that, in. local, state, national and inter-
national unions, industrial departments, central bodies,
etc., to encourage these organizations to aid and assist
each other to the fullest extent in any of the strugglesin which they may be engaged ;
to protect the rightsand the interests of the membership and the workingpeople; to promote and advance their interests and
rights economically and politically, legislatively and
socially; to make life the better for living in our day,so that the workers may be in a better position to
meet any problem with which the future generations
may be confronted. In a word, to let no eftort go byuntried by which the working people may find better-
ment upon every field of human activity. There is
no limit to any course which may be pursued by our
American Federation of Labor that is calculated to
be of advantage to the people of our country and
primarily to the working people. Of course I could
enter into detail; but the omission of any one factor
might lead to the inference that the Federation's ac-
tivity was in so far limited. It takes in the sum total
of human activity upon whatever field that may be,
which may aid, promote, advance and protect the rightsand the interests of the working people and may tend
to establish better conditions and to make for the
greatest sum total of human happiness. At no partof their scheme or in the process of evolution, is therea limit placed upon the work and the activities of the
American Federation of Labor.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Now, Mr. Hillquit, you maycross-examine Mr. Gompers.MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, you have stated that
the general objects of the Federation are to better the
conditions of the workers in all fields of human ac-
tivity. By that you mean, I presume, economic better-
ment in all directions first, don't you?MR. GOMPERS: First. Yes, and in every other.
94
MR. HILLQUIT : Including political and social ?
MR. GOMPERS: In every particular.
MR. HILLQUIT: That would include, would it not,
Mr. Gompers, improvement in political rights and in
social standing, as well as in economic conditions?
MR. GOMPERS : Beyond question.MR. HILLQUIT: Does your Federation formulate
definite programs of such improvements from, time
to time?
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, the American Federation of
Labor has concerned itself with first questions first.
MR. HILLQUIT: And it has passed various resolu-
tions recommending concrete ameliorative measures,has it not?
MR. GOMPERS: I has.
MR,. HILLQUIT: Has the American Federation of
Labor expressed itself in favor of the shortening of
the work day in keeping with the increased produc-tiveness of machinery?MR. GOMPERS: It has, and I should say that the
movement for a shorter workday has been going onfor nearly 50 years twenty years prior to the organ-ization of the American Federation of Labor. It
received more concrete form and expression since
the American Federation of Labor was formed. For
instance, in 1884, the American Federation of Labordeclared that a concrete effort should be made by the
working people of the United States to secure the
eight-hour working day on May 1st, 1886. And the
Federation offered its services to the organizations in
the establishment of the eight-hour workday by con-
ferences between workmen and employers, by corre-
spondence, by publications, by agitation and education
and, if it is responsive to the question, I may be per-mitted to say right here that upon the recommenda-tion of the American Federation of Labor, two trades,
piece-work trades, enforced the eight-hour workdayon May ist, 1886, and they have maintained the
95
eight-hour workday in the industry from that dayuntil this; and that, as a result of the declaration of
the American Federation of Labor, the movement to-.k
impetus so as to reduce the hours of labor in manytrades and callings from the 18-hour day, the i6-hour
day, not to the 8-hour day, but to the 10 and to the
Q-hour day. Now, I suppose, at some other stage of
the proceedings I may refer to the hours of labor
now generally prevailing in the industries.
MR. HILLQUIT: You may. At any rate, Mr. Gom-pers, the American Federation of Labor is unequivo-cally in favor of a shorter workday, and a progres-sive decrease of working hours in keeping with the
development of machinery and other productive forces,is it not?
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, and in addition, the need, the
recognized need of our day is for greater rest oppor-tunities and time for rest and leisure and cultivation.
MR. HILLQUIT: Quite so. Then, the AmericanFederation of Labor is also in favor of a rest of not
less than a day and a half in each week?MR. GOMPERS: Yes. I would say that we insist
upon the one rest day, an entire day in each week. 1
may say that it was my great pleasure to have beenthe President of the New York State Federation of
Labor when the Legislature of the State of New York,the first one in America, made Saturday afternoon 'i
legal holiday.MR. HILLQUIT: You are, then, Mr. Gompers, in
favor of the rest period of a day and a half, at least,
in each week?MR. GOMPERS: I am, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT : And are you also in favor of secur-
ing a more effective inspection of workshops, factor-
ies, and mines?
MR, GOMPERS: Mr. Hillquit, if I may, I should
prefer that you would address me, not as to my per-sonal wishes and preferences. I am here as President
96
of the American Federation of Labor, and I should,if you can, like to have you address your questions as
to what the attitude of the American Federation of
Labor is, rather than my own.MR. HILLQUIT : Mr. Gompers, it will be understood
that whenever I refer to you, I refer to you as the
head and representative of the American Federationof Labor, and addressing you in such capacity I nowrepeat that question: Are you or is the AmericanFederation of Labor in favor of more efficient in-
spection of workshops, factories and mines?
MR. GOMPERS: It is, it has always been, and hasworked to the accomplishment of the purposes which
you have just now read as being declared.
MR. HILLQUIT : And does the Federation also favor
forbidding the employment of children under sixteen
years of age?MR. GOMPERS: It does, and it has worked toward
the accomplishment of that purpose.MR. HILLQUIT: Does the Federation favor forbid-
ding the interstate transportation of the products of
convict labor, and the product of all uninspected fac-
tories and mines?MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir; that is merely an instru-
mentality. One of the instrumentalities for the ac-
complishment of the results mentioned in the ques-tion you asked me just now. It is not in itself the
thing; it is only an instrumentality to accomplish the
thing.MR. HILLQUIT: But as such instrumentality, the
Federation favors the measure, does it not ?
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: And do you also favor direct em-
ployment of workers by the United States Govern-
ment, State Governments, and Municipal Govern-
ments, without the intervention of contractors?
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir; and to a large degree have
accomplished that.
97
MR. HILLQUIT: Very well, sir. And does the Fed-eration also favor a minimum wage scale?
MR. GOMPERS: That question is general, and does
not admit of an intelligent answer.
MR. HILLQUIT: Well, does the Federation favor
the fixing by legal enactment of certain minimumwages below which the employer should not be per-mitted to pay?MR. GOMPERS: The American Federation of Labor
is not in favor of such a proposition, but, on the con-
trary, is very much opgosed to it, and it is necessaryto sayMR. HILLQUIT (Interrupting) : Can you state your
reasons why, Mr. Gompers?MR. GOMPERS: The attempts of Government to
establish wages at which workmen may work is in
the experience of history the beginning of an era, anda long era, of industrial slavery. There was a timein history where Governments and courts, at quartersessions, established wages. During periods wherethere was a dearth of workmen, and when employersoffered higher wages, the workmen and employerswere brought into court and both punished, punishedby imprisonment and physical mutilation, because the
one asked, received or demanded and the other was
willing to offer, or did pay higher wages.MR. HILLQUIT: May I interrupt you, Mr. Gom-
pers, because I think you misunderstood me?MR. GOMPERS: I think I will anticipate what yon
want, with the next five or six words. The proposi-tion upon which I am questioned is as to minimumwages.MR. HILLQUIT: Correct.
MR. GOMPERS: I thought I anticipated you. I
think I know the operations of men's minds a bit, par-
ticularly in the differences which you and I have boththe honor to represent.
This is a proposition, presumably, to determine a
98
minimum wage. It is a maxim in law, although I amnot a lawyer, that once a court has jurisdiction overan individual, it has the power to exercise full au-
thority in the field of that jurisdiction. I fear the
Greeks even when they bear gifts. Any attempt to
entrap the American workmen into a species of slaveryunder the guise of an offer of this character is re-
sented by the men and women of labor in the Amer-ican Federation of Labor.
MR. HILLQUIT: In other words, Mr. Gompers, if
a law were proposed in the State of New York to the
effect that no women be employed in factory indus-
tries at a wage less than, say, nine or ten dollars a
week, you would object to such a measure on the
ground that it might tend to enslave the womenworkers of the State of New York. Is that yourproposition ?
MR. GOMPERS : Let me say this, that cannot be an-
swered in a categorical anwser Yes or No.
MR. HILLQUIT : Answer it in your own way.
MR. GOMPERS: When that question was up for in-
vestigation and discussion before the Executive Coun-
cil, and subsequently before the American Federation
of Labor, there was quite a diversion of views. I ambetraying no confidence when I say that. The con-
vention decided that the subject was worthy of fur-
ther study and consideration, and that is the official
action of the convention of the American Federation
of Labor.
If you desire to have my personal views upon that.
I shall be perfectly willing to express them.
MR. HILLQUIT: You may voice your own views orthe views of the Federation, as you please. All I wantis a clear answer. My last question was: Assumingthat a law was proposed in this State, fixing a mini-
mum wage rate for women employed in factories at,
say, nine dollars or ten dollars a week, would you in-
99
dividually or as the representative of the AmericanFederation of Labor, oppose such a law ?
MR. GOMPERS: I would not be authorized nor war-ranted in opposing it since the American Federation
of Labor has characterized the question of a minimumwage as a subject worthy of further study and inves-
tigation. Personally, of course, I would prefer in
general, not to do that, but in this I shall be very gladto volunteer my opinion.MR. HILLQUIT: Go ahead, Mr. Gompers.MR,. GOMPERS: I say that in my judgment the pro-
posal, though well-meaning, is a curb upon the natural
rights and the opportunity for development of the
women of our country and of the industry.MR. HILLQUIT: Then your idea is, Mr. Gompers,
if the Legislature once fixed a minimum wage, the
machinery of the State would be set in motion to en-
force work at that rate, whether the worker desired
to render the service or not?
MR. GOMPERS: I am very suspicious of the activi-
ties of governmental agencies.MR. HILLQUIT: And your apprehensions are, then,
in that direction, that once the State is allowed to fix
a minimum rate, the State would also take the rightto compel women or men to work at that rate, is
that it?
MR. GOMPERS: That is my apprehension.MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, you are in favor of
a maximum workday established by law, are you not ?
MR. GOMPERS: I am.
MR. HILLQUIT: Wouldn't you, by analogy, say that
there is an equally justifiable apprehension that if
the Legislature once is allowed to establish a maxi-mum workday it might, by putting its machinery in
motion, compel workmen to work up to the maximumallowed ?
MR. GOMPF.RS: I think that my answer has not
been sufficiently intelligent or comprehensive when I
100
answer by the two monosyllables, "I am." I ought to
say I am in favor of legal enactments for the maxi-mum hours of labor for all workmen in direct Govern-ment employment, and for those who do work that
the Government has substituted for Governmental
authority. I am in favor and the Federation is in
favor of a maximum number of hours for children,for minors, and for women.MR. HILLQUIT: Then do I understand you to say,
Mr. Gompers, that the Federation does not favor a
legal limitation of the workday for adult men workers?
MR. GOMPERS : Not by law of the State. As a mat-ter of fact, the unions have. established very largelythe shorter workday by their own initiative, powerand influence; they have done it for themselves.
MR. HILLQUIT: I know that, Mr. Gompers, but is
the Federation opposed to similar legal enactments?
MR. GOMPERS: For adult workmen?MR. HILLQUIT: Exactly, limiting their hours of
work?MR. GOMPERS: By legal statutory authority?MR. HILLQUIT: Yes.
MR. GOMPERS : It is.
MR. HILLQUIT: It is opposed?MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT : Has it, in any of its conventions,or otherwise officially, declared itself as opposed io
such legal enactment?MR. GOMPERS: Such propositions have been up -at
several times and they have been negativecj.
MR. HILLQUIT: From all of that, you infer that
the Federation is opposed to such legal enactments ?
MR. GOMPERS: I do not think it is a question of
inference. It is a question of fact. When a propo-sition is made and it is defeated, that shows that the
body is opposed to it. It may be that the questionwas set aside because the Federation did not desire
101
to commit itself, but the grounds upon which such
rejection has occurred were as I have stated.
MR. HILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, will you tell
me what line you draw between child labor, womanlabor, and adult male labor in hazardous industries?
MR. GOMPERS: For instance, I favor of the meth-ods by which the United Mine Workers of Americahave established the eight-hour day in the bituminouscoal field by their own action rather than I would befor the enactment of a law.
MR. HILLQUIT: One does not exclude the other,does it, Mr. Gompers?MR. GOMPERS: Except as I have stated, that the
American Federation of Labor has some apprehen-sions as to the placing of additional powers in the
hands of the Government which may work to the detri-
ment of working people, and particularly when the
things can be done by the workmen themselves.
MR. HILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, as I under-stand you, the American Federation of Labor is in
favor of a uniform shorter workday and would en-
force it by means, say, of collective bargaining, or
other methods employed by labor unions ?
MR. GOMPERS: I may say, Mr. Hillquit, that youhave evidently a misapprehension of the functions of
the American Federation of Labor. As a matter of
fact, the unions themselves undertake the work of
accomplishing the shorter workday. For instance,
the International Typographical Union undertook a
movement giving employers more than a year's notice
in advance that from, a certain day on they wouldwork no more than eight hours in each day. Almost
immediately a large number of employers acceded.
Others refused. The men struck. Covering a periodof more than a year, a number of organized employersand individual firms came to an agreement accedingto the 8-hour day, and enforcing it, and finally the
eight-hour day has been established, not only for the
102
printers, the International Typographical Union, but
the 8-hour day prevails now generally in the printing
trades; and that is true in many other trades. It did
not require any law for the printers; it did not re-
quire any law for the granite cutters ; it did not re-
quire any law for the Cigar Makers' International
Union, of which I have the honor to be a member.There was not any requirement in the law in the
building trades, and many others, to introduce the
eight-hour workday.MR. HILLQUIT: I fully understand that, but you
have stated before that tire American Federation of
Labor, as such, at its annual conventions, adopted a
resolution as early as 1884, approving the movementfor an eight-hour day, and that it has since co-oper-ated with the various affiliated organizations for the
attainment of the eight-hour day.
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, but it was necessary for the
organizations themselves to take the initiative.
MR. HILLQUIT: Granted.
MR. GOMPERS: For instance, I think it was in 1890,or in 1889, when the American Federation of Labor
again took up the movement to encourage the inau-
guration of a shorter workday the eight-hour work-
day; and the Executive Council was given authority
by the convention to extend all the help it could to
any organization making application to be selected
to make the movement. The carpenters were amongthe organizations then making application, and theywere selected by the Executive Council to make the
fight.
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, to save fur-
ther misunderstanding and explanation, I will say to
you that whenever I mention the American Federa-tion of Labor, I mean not only the Executive Council,but mean also the unions affiliated with and constitut-
ing that body. Now, Mr. GompersMR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : Mr. Hillquit, pardon
103
me again. In any question and answer appearingwithout that distinction being made, the student of
history now and hereafter is not likely to go back to
your qualification and find the interpretation of the
question upon that basis;and for that reason I must
insist that each time you refer to the specific thing,rather than to the general.
MR. HILLQUIT: Very well, Mr. Gompers. As youknow, Mr. Gompers, the United Mine Workers, andthe Western Federation of Miners, both affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, have been
very active in establishing in the several states of their
operations, a minimum workday of eight-hours. Is
not that a fact?
MR. GOMPERS: In the Western states, for workmenwho are employed beneath the surface of the earth.
MR. HILLQUIT : Now, is the Federation, as a whole,in favor of such legislation as the Western Minershave obtained, say, in Colorado ?
MR,. GOMPERS: The organized labor movement of
Colorado and of Utah have accomplished that, sir
But the American Federation of Labor, as such, hasnot taken any action upon that subject.
MR. HILLQUIT : From your knowledge of the senti-
ment and position of the American Federation of
Labor as such, would you say that the Federation
approves or disapproves of the efforts of its affiliated
unions to obtain a legally established maximum work-
day?MR. GOMPERS: I think that the Federation, if called
upon to approve the course, would say that the or-
ganization acted within its rights, and if it deemedit for the best. We would not oppose it, but rather
approve it.
MR. HILLQUIT: Notwithstanding the apprehension.-
you express?MR. GOMPERS: The fact of the matter is that some
104
men unconsciously and with the best of intentions getto rivet chains on their wrists.
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, the Federa-tion would encourage the practice of its various affi-
liated organizations in endeavoring to secure a shortei
workday by means of a collective agreement withcertain groups of employers in a certain industry,would it not?
MR. GOMPERS: It would.
MR. HILLQUIT: And the ideal state would be to
have each of your affiliated organizations secure suchshorter workday by such means, would it not?
MR. GOMPERS: No, sir. I nave a very different
conception from what you have, as is quite evident,as to ideals. It is desirable, but it is not ideal.
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes; but it would be desirable.
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, if the same propositionshould come by means of a law forcing an 8-hour
workday upon all employers in a given state, or, for
that matter, throughout the Union, then the Federa-
tion, as I understand, would not approve it.
MR. GOMPERS: It would oppose it.
MR. HILLQUIT: It would oppose it?
MR, GOMPERS: If I understand and correctly in-
terpret the views of the American Federation of
Labor, it would oppose it.
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, let's understand that well,
Mr. Gompers, for the record. Your opinion is that
if there were a movement and a possibility of estab-
lishing a shorter workday, say an eight-hour workdayby legal enactment throughout the land, and a mini-
mum wage in the same way, the Federation would be
opposed to such measures?
MR. GOMPERS: It would, because it has in a largemeasure accomplished it and will accomplish it by the
initiative of the organization and the grit, the courage,
105
the manhood and womanhood of the men and womenin the American Federation of Labor.
MR. HILLQUIT : And if that grit and courage should
express itself by forcing the legislatures of the various
states to enact such a law, and if the execution of the
law were backed by a strong labor organization in each
state, with the same grit and courage, you would still
object to it?
MR. GOMPERS: Well, your hypothesis is entirely
groundless.
MR. HILLQUIT: Why, Mr. Gompers?MR. GOMPERS: When the organizations of labor,
as I have already said, have accomplished that to a
large extent, and propose to accomplish it further ontheir own initiative and by their own voluntary asso-
ciation, it precludes the question of having a legalenactment for that purpose.
MR. HILLQUIT: I just wanted to know why it pre-cludes it. You say that many of the unions affiliated
with you propose to secure a shorter workday; that
means they have not done so yet.
MR. GOMPERS: Unfortunately that is so.
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, unfortunately that is so.
Now, Mr, Gompers, my question is this : Assume that
the workers had a chance to accomplish this end bymethods of legal enactment brought about throughtheir influence and surrounded by precautions satis-
factory to the labor organizations, then I want youto say whether or not the American Federation of
Labor would be opposed to such measure.
MR. GOMPERS: It would, for the reasons I have
already stated, and for the additional reason that the
giving of the jurisdiction to government and to gov-ernmental agencies, is always dangerous to the work-
ing people.
MR. HILLQUIT: I understand you rightly. Now,Mr. Gompers, does the American Federation of Labor
106
favor a system of non-contributing old-age pensionsfor workers?MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT : And that, of course, by legal enact-
ment and governmental machinery?MR. GOMPERS : Yes.
MR. HILLQUIT: And does the Federation likewise
favor a general system of state insurance against un-
employment, sickness, disability, and industrial ac-
cident ?
MR. GOMPERS: There is some doubt as to some of
the propositions.MR. HILLQUIT: Which ones?
MR. GOMPERS: Particularly state insurance against
unemployment.MR. HILLOUIT: Is there anv doubt about state in-
surance against sickness or accidents?
MR. GOMPERS: I think not.
MR. HILLQUIT: There is not?
MR. GOMPERS: I am sure not.
MR. HILLQUIT: In other words, the Federation
supports such measures?MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: As measures .of legal enactment?MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: What does the Federation proposeto do with the problem of unemployment?MR. GOMPERS: To shorten the workday of the em-
ployed ; to share with the unemployed workmen the
work that is to be performed; to constantly work to-
wards the elimination of unemployment and throughthe refusal of the American workman to regard un-
employment as a permanent status in the industrial
and economic forces of our country.
MR,. HILLQUIT : Just what do you mean, Mr. Gom-pers, by refusal of the workman to regard it as an
institution in our industrial system ?
MR. GOMPERS: To constantly make for a reduc-
107
tion in the hours of labor to share the work withthose who are unemployed, and thereby find workhelp to find work for the unemployed, and to en-
courage and stimulate the workmen in their effort for
a constantly increasing share in the production ofwealth the consumption and use of things producedand thereby giving employment to unemployed.MR. HILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, your only
remedy is practically the shortening of the workdayand the increased power of consumption on the partof the workers that would follow as a consequence,is it not?
MR. GOMPERS: You are employing the word
"only," which is scarcely a proper characterization of
my answer.
MR. HILLQUIT: Then what else?
MR. GOMPERS: I have already enumerated.
MR. HILLQUIT: Well, then whatever you have enu-
merated constitutes the entire program of the Amer-ican Federation of Labor with reference to the un-
employed ?
MR. GOMPERS: No.MR. HILLQUIT: What else did you wish to add?MR. GOMPERS: Just as I mentioned a short while
ago, when one begins to particularize, anything un-mentioned may seem a limitation. But the sum total
of the activities of the organized workers to meetthe problem of unemployment is not encompassed in
what I have already said. We favor the undertakingof great public works. Again, I am particularizing,without wishing to limit. If you should ask mewhether I favor this or the other proposition to meetand solve the problem of the unemployed, it wouldenable you to question me on my answer, limiting or
extending, just as the case may be. But I don't be-
lieve that I should be placed in the position of having
my entire curriculum on the subject limited and short-
ened by a statement made on the spur of the moment.
108
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, the methods
you mentioned would naturally involve a rather slow
process, wouldn't they, a question of several years,
anyhow ?
MR. GOMPERS: As a matter of fact, the existence
of the organized labor movement in 1907, as well as
the existence of the organized labor movement to-day,has been and is the most potent force in our countryto prevent conditions that would act to the great,detriment of the working people of our country. In
1907, when the financial panic came upon the work-
ing people, the expressed determination of the Amer-ican labor movement to prevent, to resist at all
hazards any attempt to reduce wages was a clarion
call to the workers, and a warning to the employersthat they must not apply in our time the old methodof visiting on the workers the defects or the faults
of their own planning or misplanning.
MR. HILLQUIT: I fully appreciate it, Mr. Gompers,and fully accept it. But, does your Federation have
any program in the face of the present momentarycondition of unemployment any program of im-
mediate, even though partial, alleviation of that
condition ?
MR. GOMPERS: The American Federation of Laborand the bona fide organized labor movement, haveless to do with setting forth programs than withactual work. It is the easiest thing in the world for
people to promulgate programs which mean simple,
idle, elusive words, and nothing substantial to the
working people.MR. HILLQUIT: Does not any plan of action, Mr.
Gompers, a plan of systematic, thought-out action,
constitute a program?MR. GOMPERS: If, Mr. Hillquit, you want me to
say that the American Federation of Labor is not a.
perfect Federation, or that our organizations are not
perfect if you want me to say that these organiza-
109
tions and our Federation has not promulgated a theoryor a program for the elimination of every human ill,
I will admit it.
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, that was veryfar from my thoughts. I wanted to get at facts. I
wanted to know how the Federation stands in the face
of this acute problem in the labor conditions. Doesthe Federation favor Government relief of unem-
ployed by extension of useful public works ?
MR. GOMPER: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT : And does it also favor a provisionto the effect that all persons employed on such workshall be engaged directly by the Government and worknot more than eight hours, and at not less than the
prevailing union wages?MR. GOMPERS: Yes.
MR. HILLQUIT: Does the Federation favor a plan
by which the Government should establish employ-ment bureaus and loan money to States and munici-
palities without interest for the purposes of carryingon useful public works?
MR. GOMPERS : It has not declared itself upon that
subject, except as I have already stated in the blanket
answer; that is, it favors any tangible, rational propo-sition that would help to meet and solve the questionof unemployment.MR. HILLQUIT: Then you, individually, Mr. Gom-
pers, would not object to such a plan?MR. GOMPERS: Oh, no, I think not.
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, you also men-tioned that the American Federation of Labor tried
to improve the political status of the workers; that is
correct, is it not?
MR. GOMPERS: I should like to be quoted accur-
ately : To improve the condition of the working peoplein every human field of activity; to protect, promoteand advance their rights and interests.
110
MR. HILLQUIT: Exactly. Now, "every field of
human activity" includes the political field?
MR. GOMPERS: It does.
MR. HILLQUIT : And every right of the worker in-
cludes his political rights?
MR. GOMPERS: It does.
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, then, Mr. Gompers, is yourFederation in favor of the absolute freedom of press,
speech and assemblage?MR. GOMPERS: It is. May I amplify that answer?
MR. HILLQUIT: You may.MR. GOMPERS: I wish to say that the American
Federation of Labor has, in the effort to stand for
the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, andfreedom of assemblage, undertaken great risks, andhas asserted it and maintained it. In addition to this,
the American Federation of Labor looks askance uponany effort to curb the inherent, as well as the constitu-
tional rights of free press and free speech and free
assemblage, and holds that, though these rights maybe -perverted, may be improperly exercised, exercisedfor an unlawful purpose, yet these rights must not,in advance, be interfered with. The right of assem-
blage, the right of expression through speech or press,must be untrammeled if we are going to have a Re-
publican form of government. If anybody utters that
which is libellous or seditious or treasonable, theymust be made and may be made to answer for those
transgressions, but the right of expression must be
unimpaired, and the American Federation of Laborhas stood and will stand unalterably and unequivocallyin favor of free assemblage, free speech and free
press.
MR. HILLQUIT: So will the Socialist Party. Weare one there.
MR. GOMPERS : I did not know that the Socialist
Party was to be injected into this.
Ill
MR. HILLQUIT: Why, we have had the two inter-
jected all along.CHAIRMAN WALSH : If you will leave out the com-
ment or the assertion
MR. HILLQUIT: Very well. Mr. Gompers, is yourFederation in favor of unrestricted and equal suffragefor men and women ?
MR. GOMPERS: It is, it has been, and has donemuch to advance that cause.
MR. HILLQUIT: Does your Federation favor the
initiation, referendum and recall ?
MR. GOMPERS: It not only advocates it and has
advocated it, but one of the members of an affiliated
organization was the author of the first book upondirect legislature, initiative and referendum in the
United States Mr. James W. Sullivan.
MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, does your Federa-
tion also favor the system of proportional represen-tation ?
MR, GOMPERS: It has not, as an organization, takenaffirmative action on that subject.
MR. HILLQUIT: But it practices it in its own con-ventions? Your vote is based on membership?MR. GOMPERS: Proportional representation, as that
term is usually applied, is not the proportional rep-resentation to which you refer in the voting in the
conventions of the American Federation of Labor.The proportional representation that is, I want to
know whether I am right?MR. HILLQUIT: I will define it, Mr. Gompers.MR. GOMPERS: Yes.
MR. HILLQUIT: I use the term "proportional rep-resentation" as denoting a system by which votes are
cast and rights are exercised by representatives in pro-
portion to the numerical strength of the constituents?
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, I favor that.
MR. HILLQUIT: You do?
112
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. The American Federation
of Labor does.
MR. HILLQUIT : Does the Federation favor the elec-
tion of the president and vice-president of the UnitedStates by direct vote of the people without interven-
tion of the electoral college?MR. GOMPERS : It does, and has so declared.
MR. HILLQUIT: Does your Federation favor a re-
striction upon the powers of judges to nullify laws cr
to set them aside as unconstitutional ?
MR. GOMPERS: It does.
MR,. HILLQUIT : Does your Federation favor a
measure to make the constitution of the United States
amendable by a majority vote of the people?MR. GOMPERS: Amendable by an easier method
than at present prevails. As to the specific proposi-tion that you have just asked, I am not so sure. I
don't know. No expression has been made on the
subject.MR. HILLQUIT: Personally, Mr. Gompers, you
would think a simpler method of amending the con-
stitution would be a step in advance?
MR. GOMPERS: The present method is very cum-bersome and slow, and, being a written constitution,while it ought not to be subject, to changes at everyebb and flow of the tide, changes ought to be mucheasier than now.MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, are you in
favor of curbing the powers of the court to punishfor contempt in labor disputes, or to regulate that
power?MR. GOMPERS: If I may adopt the tactics of the
Yankee, I might say, "Do you doubt it?" Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: Are you in favor of the enactmentof further measures for general education, and par-
ticularly for vocational education in useful pursuits?MR. GOMPERS: Yes. Here is a fact -not generally
known : That to the organized labor movement of
113
Massachusetts belongs the credit of having established
the public schools of Massachusetts. Prior to that
time there were schools which the children of indigent
parents could attend, but the child that did attend car-
ried with it the stigma of the poverty of its parents,and it was a stigma then. The labor movement of
Massachusetts secured the enactment of a law remov-
ing the requirement by which the parents had to de-
clare that they were indigent and could not afford to
pay for the tuition of their children. Thus came into
vogue the first public school system in the world.
MR. HILLQUIT : So that the Federation is committedto and favors an extension of the educational system,and the vocational training?MR. GOMPERS: In all of its highest and best phase?.
And say that the American Federation of Labor hashad a Committee for the past ten years, a Committee
composed of many of its own representative men andwomen and a number of public educators acting for
the American Federation of Labor, yet independentof it, that has worked out a system of vocational train-
ing in industrial and agricultural vocational training,household economy and civic duty, so much so that
the report of that committee was made a public docu-ment by the Senate of the United States.
MR. HILLQUIT : Is your Federation in favor of the
free administration of justice?
MR. GOMPERS: It is.
MR. HILLQUIT : I have enumerated to you all politi-
cal and industrial demands in the platform of the
Socialist Party, and find that your Federation adoptsthem with the exception of two points of difference
on the question of a maximum workday and the mini-
mum wage. You would accomplish that by pure eco-
nomic action;the Socialist Party advocates it through
legal enactment, is that correct?
MR. GOMPERS: It is not correct.
MR. HILLQUIT: Why?114
MR. GOMPERS: As a matter of fact, the Socialist
Party has purloined the demands and the vocabularyof the American Labor movement, and has adoptedthem as its own, and now you ask the American Fed-
eration of Labor whether it favors them.
MR. HILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, whether wehave purloined our program or not, the American Fed-eration of Labor, as the original inventor or other-
wise, fully approves of it with the exception of the
small differences I mentioned, is that correct?
MR. GOMPERS: I would like to hear the question.
(The question was read by the stenographer.)
MR. HILLQUIT: Suppose we waive that answer?
MR. GOMPERS: No, don't waive the answer. Justamend your question so that it is comprehensible.
MR. HILLQUIT: It is merely in the nature of a
summary, Mr. Gompers. I have read to you point
by point the working program of the Socialist Partywith reference to economic and political measures,and I have asked you in each instance whether yourFederation approves of such measures. Your answerhas been in the affirmative, uniformly, except on the
questions of the minimum wage and the maximumworkday. As to those questions we agreed on the
principle, but you would secure it by purely economicaction and the Socialist Party by legal enactment. It
is in the nature ot a summary. I want it on the
record. You may answer or not, as you please.
MR. GOMPERS: What did you want me to answer?
MR. HILLQUIT: Is it so or is it not so?
MR. GOMPERS : I say that these demands which- youhave enumerated have been promulgated, declared and
fought for, and in many instances accomplished, bythe American Federation of Labor and the organizedlabor movement of the country. Your question wouldindicate that you claim the adhesion of the Americanlabor movement to original propositions when, as a
115
matter of fact, they have been put into your platformsimply as vote-catchers.*
MR. HILLQUIT: Then you admit the identity of
the program but you deny priority on our part ?
MR. GOMPERS: And I question the purpose.MR. HILLQUIT : Now, Mr. Gompers, let me ask you.
has the Republican Party or the Democratic Partypurloined from you the same demands?MR. GOMPER^: Not all of them, but many of themMR. HILLQUIT: Any of them?MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: How many. And which?MR. GOMPERS: Will you give me a few minutes'
time, Mr. Chairman?CHAIRMAN WALSH: Do you wish to be excused?MR. GOMPERS: No, sir; only a few minutes' time,
that I may answer.
MR. HILLQUIT: Do you want to consult with me?MR. GOMPERS: No, I don't need advice from you,
Brother Hillquit.I may say, Mr. Chairman,, that because my friend,
Mr. Gordon, did me the kindness of looking up and
handing to me a copy of the American Federationist,
*Historically this assertion is entirely wrong. Some of the
most important measures discussed in the preceding pages,such as the reduction of workhours, the fixing of a minimumwage, the abolition of child labor and the freedom of the
press, were first formulated by the International Workmen'sAssociation under the leadership of Karl Marx, in the sixties
of the last century, and the Socialist Labor Party of this coun-
try had a full program of industrial and political reform five
years before the American Federation of Labor was organ-ized. -It is true, however, that the Socialist Party makes it
a rule to incorporate in its platform all new progressive de-
mands of organized labor as soon as they are formulated.That is its mission in politics as a working class party. Tospeak of "purloining" such demands for the purpose of
"catching" the votes of the workers for the cause of the
workers, shows a singular misconception of the object andmethods of the labor movement.
116
it would be erroneous to place the construction uponthat that he has prepared my questions or my answers,or that he has helped me in any other way than I havestated. The significance of this remark may be outside
of the record rather than in.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : It is really lost upon me.
MR. GOMPERS: I am sure it is not lost upon myc'ross-examiner. Is it?
MR. HILLQUIT: Nothing is lost on me, Mr. Gom-pers, that comes from you.
MR. GOMPERS: In answer to the question pro-
pounded by Mr. Hillquit, I think I ought to say that
among the demands which the labor movement of
America makes is the limitation of the powers of the
President of the United States in the exercise of his
veto upon the legislation of the representatives of the
people.
MR. HILLQUIT: That is contained in our platformlikewise, Mr. Gompers.MR. GOMPERS: The only member of Congress the
Socialist Party has ever had sustained two vetoes ofthe President of the United States.
We also have secured the election of United States
Senators by the direct vote of the people.I have here, Mr. Chairman, the report which I made
to the International Secretariat, ic., the organizedexpression of the labor movement 01 the civilized
world. It bears the general caption : "President
Gompers' Report to the International Secretariat,"and the sub-captions:
"i. National Legislative Gains for 1912.2. State Legislative Gains for 1912.
3. National' Economic Gains for 1912."
It would take me about half an hour to read the
report but I submit that I have no desire to bore the
Commission or to take up unnecessary time of the
Commission and counsel. If it can be incorporated
117
here as my answer to the question of the gentleman,you will find it comprehensive.CHAIRMAN WALSH : As I understand Mr. Hill-
quit's question, he has asked you to call attention to
the places in the platforms of the Democratic or
Republican Parties where demands are made for the
same social measures as he read to you this morning,is that correct?
MR. HILLQUIT: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Can you do that by referringto your notes, just read into the record when andwhere the demand was made by either one of the
parties ?
MR. GOMPERS: I cannot do that just now from
memory. I have not the platform declarations of the
State Committees.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Then it is impossible to doit on account of the comprehensive nature of the
question at this time?
MR. GOMPERS: I supplement this answer by sayingthat I here submit to the Commission a report of the
legislative gains secured at the hands of Congress andthe several legislatures composed of Republicans andDemocrats and Prohibitionists and Progressives.CHAIRMAN WALSH : Very well. That may be
made a part of the record then, and not read in ex-
tenso.
MR. HILLQUIT : Now, Mr. Gompers, to take up an-
other subject, is it your conception or that of the
Federation, that workers in the United States to-dayreceive the full product of their labor?
MR. GOMPERS: I think, but I am not quite so sure,
that I know what you have in mind.
MR. HILLQUIT: Do you understand my question?MR GOMPERS: I think I do. In the generally ac-
cepted sense of that term, they do not.
MR. HILLQUIT: In any particular sense, yes?MR. GOMPERS: No.
118
MR. HILLQUIT: Then the workers of this countrydo not receive the whole product of their labor? Can
you hazard a guess as to what proportion of the pro-duct they do receive in the shape of wages?MR. GOMPERS: I am not a good guesser, and I
doubt that there is any value in a guess.MR. HILLQUIT: You have no general idea, have
you, on the subject?MR, GOMPERS: I have a most general idea, but I
am not called upon to guess.MR. HILLQUIT : No. Will you please give us your
most general idea?
MR. GOMPERS: As to what proportion?MR. HILLQUIT: As to the approximate proportion
of their product which the workers, as a whole, get.
MR. GOMPERS: I will say that it is impossible for
any one to definitely say what proportion the workersreceive as a reward for their labor; but it is a fact
that, due to the organized labor movement they have
received, and are receiving, a larger share of the
product of their labor than they ever did in the his-
tory of modern society.
MR. HILLQUIT: Then one of the functions of or-
ganized labor is to increase the share of the workersin the product of their labor, is that correct ?
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir. Organized labor makes
constantly increasing demand upon society for rewardfor the services which the workers render ;tO society,and without which civilized life would be impossible.MR. HILLQUIT : And these demands for an increas-
ing share of the product of labor continue as a grad-ual process all the time?
MR. GOMPERS: I am not so sure as to gradualprocess. Sometimes it is not a gradual process, but
it is all the tfrne.
MR. HILLQUIT: All the time?MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, you assume
119
that the organized labor movement has generally suc-
ceeded in forcing a certain increase of the portion ofthe workers' share in the general product, do you?
MR,. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: And it demands more now?MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir..
MR. HILLQUIT: And if it should get, say, 5 percent, more within the next year, will the organizedlabor movement rest contented with that, and stop?MR. GOMPERS: Not if I know anything about hu-
man nature.
MR. HILLQUIT: Will the organized movement stopin its demands for an ever greater share in the pro-duct at any time before it receives the full product,and before complete social justice, as it sees it, is
done?MR. GOMPERS: The working people are human
beings as all other people. They are prompted bythe same desires and hopes of a better life, and theyare not willing to wait until after they have shuffled
off this mortal coil for the better life. They want )t
here and now. They want to make conditions better
for their children so that they may meet the newer
problems in their time. The working people are press-
ing forward, making their claims and presenting those
claims with whatever power they have. Pressing for-
ward to secure a larger, and constantly larger shareof the products. They are working towards the highest and best ideals of social justice.
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, "the highest and best ideals
of social justice," as applied to distribution of wealth,wouldn't that be a system under which all the workers,
manual, mental, directive and executive would togetherget the sum total of all the products of their toil ?
MR. GOMPERS: Really, a fish is caught by a tempt-
ing bait; a mouse or a rat is caught in a trap by ;i
tempting bait. The intelligent, common-sense work-men prefer to deal with the problems of to-day, the
120
problems with which they are bound to contend if
they want to advance, rather than to deal with a pic-
ture and a dream which has never had, and I am sure
never will have, any reality in the actual affairs of
humanity, and which threaten, if they could be intro-
duced, the worst system of circumscriptional effort
and activity that has ever been invented by the humanmind.
MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, I would like to getan answer. In your experience with the labor move-ment and its forward march towards ever greater im-
provement, and greater measure of social justice, can
you locate a point at which the labor movement will
stop and rest contented so long as the workers will
receive less than the full product of their work?MR. GOMPERS: I say that the workers, as human
beings, will never stop at any point in the effort to
secure greater improvements in their conditions and a
better life in all its phases. And wherever that maylead and whatever that may be in my time and at myage, I decline to permit my mind or my activities to
be labeled by any particular ism.
MR. HILLQUIT: I do not try to attach any ism to
you, but the question I ask is whether the AmericanFederation of Labor and its authorized spokesmanhave a general social philosophy, or work blindly from
day to day.MR. GOMPERS: I think your question is
MR,. HILLQUIT (Interrupting) : Inconvenient?
MR. GOMPERS: No. I will tell you what it is it is
a question prompted to you, and is an insult.
MR. HILLQUIT : It is not a question prompted to me.
MR. GOMPERS: It is an insult.
MR. HILLQUIT: Why, Mr. Gompers?MR. GOMPERS: It insinuates that the men and the
women in the American Federation of Labor move-ment are acting blindly from day to day.MR. HILLQUIT : I have not insinuated
121
MR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : Your question im-
plies it.
MR. HILLQUIT: I am giving you an opportunityto deny.MR. GOMPERS: If a man should ask me whether 1
still beat my wife, any answer I could make wouldincriminate me. If I answered that I did not, the
intimation would be that I had stopped. If I an-
swered that I did, the inference would be that I was
continuing to beat her.
MR. HILLQUIT: But, Mr. Gompers, my questionbears no analogy to that storyMR. GOMPERS (Interrupting): Your question is an
insult, and a studied one.
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, will you state whether youwill or will not answer my question?MR. GOMPERS: Will you repeat the question?MR. HILLQUIT: My question was whether the
American Federation of Labor, as represented by its
spokesman, has a general social philosophy, or whetherthe organization is working blindly from day to day.Now, that is a plain question.MR. GOMPERS: Yes, it is a plain question it is a
plain insult.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Do you refuse to answer it onthe ground that it is insulting?MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : That is all, then.
MR. HILLQUIT : Then inform me on this : In its
practical work in the labor movement is the AmericanFederation of Labor guided by a general social philos-
ophy, or is it not?
MR. GOMPERS: It is guided by the history of the
past, drawing its lessons from history. It knows the
conditions by which the working people are sur-
rounded. It works along the line of least resistance
and endeavors to accomplish the best results in im-
proving the condition of the working people, men,
122
women and children, to-day and to-morrow and to-
morrow's to-morrow and each day, making it a better
day than the one that had gone before. The guidingprinciple, philosophy and aim of the labor movementis to secure a better life for all.
MR. HILLQUIT: But in these efforts to improveconditions from day to day, you must have an under-
lying standard of what is better, don't you?MR. GOMPERS : No. You start out with a given
program, and everything must conform to it; andif the facts do not conform to your theories, then youractions betray the state of mind "so much the worsefor the facts."
MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, what I ask you js
this : You say you try to make the conditions of the
workers better every day. In order to determinewhether the conditions are better or worse, you musthave some standards by which you distinguish the
bad from the good in the labor movement, must younot?
MR. GOMPERS: Certainly. Does it require muchdiscernment to know that a wage of $3.00 and a
workday of 8 hours a day in sanitary workshops are
all better than $2.50 and 12 hours a day under perilousconditions of labor? It does not require much con-
ception of a social philosophy to understand that.
MR,. PIILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, by parity of
reasoning, $4.00 a day and 7 hours of work, and trulyattractive working conditions are still better?
MR. GOMPERS : Unquestionably.MR. HILLQUIT : Therefore
MR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : Just a moment. I
have not stipulated $4.00 a day or $8.00 a day or anynumber of dollars a day or 8 hours a day or 7 hoursa day or any number of hours a day. The aim is to
secure the best conditions obtainable for the workers.
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes; and when these conditions
are obtained
123
MR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : Why, then we wantbetter
MR. HILLQUIT (Continuing) : You will still strive
for better?
MR. GOMPERS: Yes.
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, my question is, will this ef-
fort on the part of organized labor ever stop before
the workers receive the full reward for their labor?
MR. GOMPERS : It won't stop at all at any particular
point, whether it be that towards which you have just
stated, or anything else. The working people will
never stop in their effort to obtain a better life for
themselves, and for their wives and for their children
and for humanity.MR. HILLQUIT: Then the object of the organized
workmen is to obtain complete social justice for them-selves and for their wives and for their children?
MR. GOMPERS: It is the effort to obtain a better life
every day.MR. HILLQUIT: Every day, and alwaysMR,. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : Every day. That
does not limit it.
MR. HILLQUIT: Until such time
MR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : Not until any time.
MR. HILLQUIT: In other wordsMR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : In other words, we
go farther than you. (Laughter and applause in the
audience.) You have an end; we have not.
MR. HILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, you want to
go on record as saying that the American Federation
of Labor goes farther in its endeavors than the So-
cialist Party. If the Socialist Party has for its pres-ent purpose the abolition of the system of profits and
wages, and seeks to secure for the workers the full
product of their labor, if this is the purposes whichit seeks to obtain by gradual steps then I under-stand you to say that the American Federation of
Labor goes beyond that.
124
MR. GOMPERS: I have said this, and I say that no
categorical answer, Yes, or No, can be given to that
question. As just indicated, as' to the abolition of
private profits and wages there are a number of
employers who quite agree with you ; they wouldreduce wages or take wages away entirely. The ques-tion of the co-operative commonwealth and the owner-
ship of the means of production and distribution is
implied by it. Now, let me say -
MR. HILLQUIT (Interrupting) : It is not, Mr.
Gompers.MR. GOMPERS: Well, all right.
MR. HILLQUIT: I am not proposing any system. I
want your aims and the limits of your aims.
MR. GOMPERS: By your question, you want to
place me in the position of saying that I am for the
system of society which some of you dreamers haveconceived of, and then say that I go beyond it.
MR. HILLQUIT: I do not, Mr. Gompers, you in-
terrupted meMR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : Well, you inter-
rupted me, so we are even. And I say that the move-ment of the working people, whether under the Amer-ican Federation, or not, will be simply following the
human impulse for improvement in their condition,and wherever that may lead, they will go, without hav-
ing a goal up to yours or surpassing yours. It will
lead them constantly to greater material, physical,social and moral well-being.
MR. HILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, you wouldnot say that the difference between the program of
the American Federation of Labor,' and that of the
Socialist Party is a quantitative one that the Socialist
Party wants more than the American Federation of
Labor. You would not say that, would you?MR. GOMPERS: I don't know that it is necessary
that I should make the comparison. It is not inter-
125
esting at all, nor is it a contribution to the subjectwhich the Commission desires to examine.
MR. HILLQUIT: You decline to answer?MR. GOMPERS: The question is not germane to the
subject under inquiry, and is not necessary.CHAIRMAN WALSH : I would like to hear it an-
swered if possible, Mr. Gompers. If it is not possiblefor any reason, very well.
MR. GOMPERS: May I hear the question read?
(Question read.)MR. GOMPERS: Socialism is a proposition to place
the working people of the country and of the worldin a physical and material straight-jacket.MR. HILLQUIT: Pardon me, Mr. Gompers, I have
not asked you your opinion about the effects of the
co-operative commonwealth. I am speaking merelyabout the aim to abolish the wage system and the
program to secure for the workers the full productof their labor; and I am asking you whether on these
points we demand more than the American Federationhas ultimately in view.
MR. GOMPERS: I think you demand something lo
which the American labor movement declines to giveits adherence.
MR. HILLQUIT: Then do I understand you to saythat the American labor movement would discounte-
nance the abolition of the wage system and the return
of the full reward of labor to the workers?MR. GOMPERS: Your question is an assumption, and
is unwarranted, for as a matter of fact we decline to
commit our labor movement to your species of specu-lative philosophy.MR. HILLQUIT: I have not introduced speculative
philosophy, Mr. Gompers. If I cannot make myselfclear, please tell me so.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : May I be permitted here to
ask the stenographer to read that last question?MR. HILLQUIT: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
126
(The question read as follows) : I am speaking
merely about the aim to abolish the wage system, and
about the program to secure to the workers the full
product of their labor, and I am asking in this respectwhether we demand more than the American Federa-
tion of Labor has ultimately in view.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : That is with reference to get-
ting the full product of labor alone ?
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Now, can you answer that
directly, Mr. Gompers?MR. GOMPERS: No; that is impossible to answer by
a Yes or No.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Then let it stand there, be-
cause that implies that it is impossible to answer it.
MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, when you stated
first that the workingmen of to-day do not get the
full reward for their labor or the full product of
their toil, will you tell me who gets the part whichis withheld from 'the workers ?
MR. GOMPERS: Investment, superintendence, the
agencies for the creation of wants among the people,and many others.
MR. HILLQUIT: Well, then, in your opinion those
are legitimate factors in industry entitled to reward?MR. GOMPERS: Many of them, yes; many of them
are being eliminated.
MR. HILLQUIT: Which ones are entitled and whichones are not entitled to reward?MR. GOMPERS: Superintendence, the creation of
wants, administration, return for investment
MR. HILLQUIT: Return for investment? Does that
include every kind of capital invested in industry,
regardless of origin?MR. GOMPERS: No, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: Then what do you mean by return
for investment?MR. GOMPERS: For honest investment. I don't
127
mean watered stocks or inflated holdings, but honestinvestment.
MR. HILLQUIT: Honest stock investment?
MR,. GOMPERS: Honest investment. I did not say"stock investment."
MR. HILLQUIT: Well, I am talking about stock
investment, Mr. Gompers. Do you consider dividends
paid by corporations as distinguished from salaries
paid for superintendence and so on do you considerthat a'legitimate charge on the products of labor?
MR. GOMPERS: That depends entirely as to the
character of the services performed.MR. HILLQUIT: Now, I assume that no service is
performed. So far as services are performed are
concerned, we have classified those under the headof superintendence, management, initiation, and so on.
Now, I am referring to the dividends on stock, whichis paid to stockholders by virtue of stock ownership,and regardless of any activity on the part of the stock-
holder.
MR. GOMPERS: I am speaking of honest investment,
too, which you did not include.
MR. HILLQUIT: Will you please answer that ques-tion with such qualifications as you may deem properto make?
MR. GOMPERS: I have already replied, and I nowrepeat, upon honest 'investment, yes.
MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, assume that I pur-chase to-day in the open market and pay the full price
for, say, 100 shares of Steel Corporation stock. Thenext quarter year I get my dividends on it. Am I en-
titled to such dividends?
MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if Mr.
Hillquit is going to permit this investigation to de-
generate into a question of high finance, why, we hadbetter get a high financier here.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : I think that is a proper ques-
128
tion and germane to this inquiry, but if you cannotanswer it, you may say so.
MR. GOMPERS: I wish respectfully, Mr. Chairman,to differ from that remark of the Chair
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Then you don't care to an-
swer?MR. GOMPERS : I decline to answer it on the ground
that it is not material to the question, and purely a
question of a financial character. It is not a question
upon which proper interrogation can be made.CHAIRMAN WALSH : I have ruled that it was, but
we are not going to compel Mr. Gompers to reply to it.
MR. HILLQUIT : No, of course not.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Go ahead.
MR. HILLQUIT: Will you please define what youcall honest investment as distinguishedMR. GOMPERS (Interrupting) : An honest man finds
no difficulty in determining what is honest.
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, that is reallynot an answer. You. have made that statement, andI presume you mean something by it; I should like
to know what you mean?MR. GOMPERS: I mean honest, actual physical in-
vestment.
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, I am asking you, does the
purchase of stock with real physical money, at the full
price constitute such an honest investment?
MR. GOMPERS: First let me say, in answer to that
question, that with the manipulations of stocks andof the stock market, I am out of harmony. I amopposed to it, and have done and will do 'whatever I
can to eliminate that speculation involved in the fun-
damentals of stock jobbery and stock sales.
MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, you are familiar
with industrial conditions as few men in this country.You know perfectly well that the most important in-
dustries in the United States are managed and oper-ated by corporations, and you know that th'e income
129
from such industries is distributed very largely in the
form of dividends on stocks and interest <m bond-,don't you?MR. ( io.\i i-KKs: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: Now. I am asking you this ques-tion: As the President of the American Federation of
Labor do you consider that the vast sum of moneypaid annually by industry in the" shape of such divi-
dends on stock and interest on bonds in the variousindustries are a legitimate and proper charge uponthe product of labor, or do you not ?
MR. GOMPERS: I do not.
MR. HILLQUIT : That is an answer. Then the stock
holders or bond bonders of modern corporations re-
ceive a workless income from the product of the
workers who have produced it. Is that your opinion ?
MR. GOMPERS: Unquestionably.
MR. HILLQUIT : And the efforts of the Americanlabor movement to secure a larger share are directed
against that class who gets such improper income?
MR. GoMpERfs: Against all who
MR. HILLQUIT : Against all who obtain a workless
income which comes from the product of labor. Is
that correct?
MR. GOMPERS: Well, all who illegitimately stand
between the workers and the attainment of a better
life.
MR. HILLQUIT : Which means, or does it not mean,all those who derive an income without work by virtue
of their control of the industry?MR. GOMPERS: No.
MR. HILLQUIT: Whom do you except?MR. GOMPERS: I except, as I have before called
attention to, honest investment, honest enterprise.
MR. HILLQUIT : Have the efforts of the workers ni
the American Federation of Labor and in other labor
organizations to obtain a larger share of the product,
130
met a favorable reception from those who obtain whatwe may call the unearned part of the product?MR. GOMPERS: If you mean the employersMR. HILLQUIT: Employers, stockholders, bond-,
holders, the capitalist class generally.
MR. GOMPERS : As a matter of fact, there has been
very much opposition to the efforts of the workingpeople to secure improved conditions.
MR. HILLQUIT: And that opposition is based uponthe desire of the beneficiaries of the present system of
distribution to retain as much as possible of their pres-ent share or to increase it, is it not?
MR. GOMPERS: I suppose it is not difficult to de-
termine that that is one of the reasons. But one addi-
tional reason is that there are employers who live in
the 2oth century and have the mentality of the i6th
century in regard to their attitude toward workingpeople. They still imagine that they are the mastersof all that serve, and that any attempt on the partof the working people to secure improvement in their
condition is a species of rebellion a rebellious spiritwhich must be bounded down. But we find this, Mr.
Hillquit, that after we have had some contests with
employers of such a character, whether we have wonthe battle or lost it, if we but maintain our organiza-tion, there is less difficulty thereafter in reaching a
joint agreement or a collective bargain involving im-
proved conditions for the working people.
MR. HILLQUIT: That is, if you retain your organ-ization ?
MR. GOMPERS : Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: And the stronger the organization,the more likelihood of securing such concessions, is
that correct ?
MR. GOMPERS : . Unquestionably.MR. HILLQUIT: Then it is not on account of the
changed sentiment of the employer, that he is ready to
131
yield, but on account of greater strength shown by the
employes, is that correct?
MR. GOMPERS: Not entirely.MR. HILLQUIT: No, why not?MR. GOMPERS: Not entirely, for, as a matter of
fact, the employer changes his sentiment when he is
convinced that the workingmen have demonstratedthat they have the right to have a voice in determiningthe questions affecting the relations between them-selves and their employers, as evidenced, if you please,
by the late Mr. Baer, who, you may recall, once de-
clared that he would not confer with the representa-tive of the miners or anyone who stood for them
;that
he and his associates were the trustees of God in the
administration of their property, and appointed to take
care of the rights and interests of the working people.
Well, he lived to revise his judgment, as many other
employers live to revise their judgments, and havecome to agreements with their workmen.MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, the employers
as a class, being interested in retaining their share of
the general product or increasing it, and the workersas you say, being determined to demand an ever
greater and greater share of it, would you say that
the economic interests between the two classes are
harmonious or not?
MR. GOMPERS: I say they are not, and as I amunder affirmation before this Commission, I take this
opportunity of saying that no man within the rangeof my acquaintance has ever been so thoroughly mis-
represented on that question as I have.
MR. HILLQUIT: State your actual position.CHAIRMAN WALSH : At this joint the Commission
will adjourn until 2 o'clock.
132
FOURTH SESSION.
The Conflicts between Capital and Labor
CHAIRMAN WALSH : The Commission will nowcome to order, please. You may proceed, Mr.
Hillquit.MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Chairman, I desire to finish
the answer which I was about to make to the question
upon the recess being taken.
The question propounded essentially was whether I
believed that the relations betwee the employers and
employes are harmonious.
MR. HILLQUIT: Economically harmonious.MR. GOMPERS: I answered No, and I stated that I
have been misrepresented by Socialist writers andorators upon that subject so many times that theythemselves finally believe it, and no amount of em-
phatic repudiation of that statement, and no matterhow often that repudiation was expressed by me, hasmade any change in the assertion that my position is
contrary to the one I have stated here.
MR,. HILLQUIT: Then you want to go on record
now, Mr. Gompers, as stating that, in your opinion, the
economic interests of the employing classes, and those
of the workers are not harmonious ?
MR. GOMPERS: I have no desire to particularly goon record here upon that subject. That record hasbeen made from my earliest understanding of the con-
ditions which prevail in the industrial world.
MR. HILLQUIT : And that is your answer now ?
MR. GOMPERS: That has been my position ever
since, and has not been changed in the slightest. There
133
are times when there are, for temporary purposes,reconcilable conditions, but they are temporary only.When a fair and reasonable opportunity presents it-
self for continued improvement in the condition of the
workers, that movement must necessarily go on, andwill go on.
MR. HILLQUIT: And that movement, Mr. Gom-pers, must be a movement of the workers as workers,is that correct?
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir, undominated by the so-
called intellectuals or butters-in.
MR. HILLQUIT: In other words, the movement for
the working class improvement must be conducted bythe workers as such in order to be effective?
MR. GOMPERS: To be the most effective.
MR. HILLQUIT: And it must be necessarily con-
ducted against the employing classes?
MR. GOMPERS: It is conducted for the workingpeople.
MR. HILLQUIT: And is it or is it not conducted
against the interests of the employing people?
MR. GOMPERS: It is conducted for the interests ofthe employed people.
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, you havestated before that the interests of the working peopleare not harmonious with those of the employingclasses. You have also stated that in order to secure
lasting and valuable improvements, the workers as
such must conduct their own battles. Are not suchbattles conducted against somebody?
MR. GOMPERS: They are primarily conducted for
somebody.
MR,. HILLQUIT: But can a battle be conducted forsomebody which is not also conducted against some-
body?MR. GOMPERS: As to those who stand in the way
and are hostile to the advance of the conditions of the
134
working1
people, it is conducted against them, whoever
they may be.
MR. HILLQUIT : Who are they, as a matter of fact,
in 'your opinion ?
MR. GOMPERS : Those employers who refuse to un-derstand modern industrial Conditions and constant
needs for advancement of the working people.
MR. HILLQUIT : In other words, those employerswho refuse to accede to the demands of organizedlabor, is that correct?
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: Is that class of employers limited
to only such who have a narrow social vision? Ordoes it extend pretty largely to the entire employingclass, in your experience.
MR. GOMPERS : It is growing less and less so. Asa matter of fact, there are more employers to-daywho live under collective bargains with their organ-ized working people than at any time in the history ofthe industrial world.
MR. HILLQUIT: And as to those employers whohave agreements for collective bargaining with em-
ployes, do they, as a rule, and within your experience,volunteer improvements to their employes, or are such
improvements forced from them either by method of
collective bargaining, or by strikes or other weaponsof the labor movement?
MR. GOMPERS: That is usually in the initiative
stages of the altered relations between workers and
employers. Later, there is a realization on the partof the employers that it is more costly to enter into
prolonged strikes or lockouts, and they are willing to
concede demands rather than to have the industry in-
terrupted. This grows in extent and alters the vision
of the employer. It changes his attitude toward the
workmen. So that his sentiment and views are oftenin entire accord with the organization of the workingpeople.
135
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, taking the relations of the
employer and employes as a whole, would you saythat the gains made by the organized labor movementin this country have to any large extent been the
result of a free gift on the part of the employingclasses ? Or would you say that they have been wrungfrom the employing classes by organized labor?
MR. GOMPERS: There is no question as to the fact
of the latter alternative in your question being thecorrect one. What the workingmen of America haveobtained in improved conditions, higher wages andshorter hours of labor, were not handed to them ona silver platter. They had to organize, they had to
show their teeth, they had to strike, and they had to
go hungry and make sacrifices in order to impress uponthe employers their determination to be larger sharersin the production of wealth.
MR. HILLQUIT : Then, as a whole, the achievementsof the American labor movements have been accom-
plished in organized struggles of the workers againsttheir employers. Is that correct ?
MR. GOMPERS: As a rule, but
MR,. HILLQUIT: There are exceptions?Mr. GOMPERS: There are exceptions. For in-
stance, you might say there have been a number of
workmen who were unorganized, or nearly unorgan-ized. The instance comes to me just now of the coal
miners. In their first strike, in 1897, there was not
3 per cent, organized. And yet upon the initiative of
the union and the recommendation of the officers of
the American Federation of Labor, a movement was
inaugurated to present a scale to the mine operatorsin the bituminous fields with a warning that unless
the proposed increase in wages and other demandswere granted upon a certain day, there would come a
call urging the miners to lay down their tools. The
employers realizing the unorganized condition of the
miners never for a moment imagined that the small
136
union would have any influence upon their so-called
"independent workers," the workingmen over whomthey had exercised domination for a long time. Asa matter of fact, however, the miners responded and,
though they were unorganized, there was a group-patriotism to which I referred in the early part of mytestimony, a camaraderie, an understanding of their
common interests, and they received the assistance
of their fellow workmen in other industries, the full
assistance of the American Federation of Labor, until,
finally, it resulted in the regeneration of the miners.
They won, and they established the 8-hour day, the
right to make purchases of their necessities wherever
they chose; the right to be at least like any other
ordinary citizens and men, and the spirit and influence
spread until it reached the anthracite coal fields andthe entire competitive fields in the bituminous coal
fields in other States and so on. The same is true in
the garment trades, in the needle trades and in several
others.
MR. HILLQUIT : Mr. Gompers, in all those instances
the workers organized during the fight?
MR. GOMPERS: After the fight.
MR. HILLQUIT : But it was collective action on their
part, anyhow?MR. GOMPERS : Yes.
MR. HILLQUIT: And there is no exception to the
rule that in order to obtain lasting improvements, the
workers must collectively struggle for it, as workers?
MR. GOMPERS: All workers, yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT : And in such struggles, the workerscannot possibly be aided by the employing classes,
can they?MR. GOMPERS: That is not entirely so, because
it frequently occurs that the competitive interests of
the employers may impel some of them to aid the
workingmen in the establishment of what has become
137
known as standardized conditions in the trade a mini-mum of standardization.
MR. HILLQUIT: Just incidents in the struggles ofthe workers, and of which the workers take advantagewhen the occasions arise?
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: But on the whole, the AmericanFederation of labor recognizes that the struggle for
improvement of the conditions of the workers is a
struggle of the workers, and principally the organizedworkers, does it not?
MR. COMPERE: Yes.
MR. HILLQUIT: You don't tolerate within yourunions employers as members ?
MR. GOMPERS: We do not. That is, our affiliated
unions do not. In the directly affiliated locals, those
locals which have no national bodies of their own, wedon't permit employers to become members.MR. HILLQUIT: Can you conceive of any scheme
by which the interests of the employer and those of
the employes could be made harmonious and their co-
operation could lead to the same beneficent results
as the independent struggles of the workers?
MR. GOMPERS: I know of no means by which the
interests of the employers and the workingmen can
be made harmonious in- the full and broad sense of
that term.
MR. HILLQUIT: And do you concede that a labor
leader is most useful to his organization and to his
movement when he devotes his time and his thought,
single-mindedly, to the interests of the labor organ-izations ?
MR. GOMPERS: And to the working people.MR. HILLQUIT: To the working people?MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT : And do you consider a labor leader
who combines with a number of prominent employersin an alleged effort to improve the condition of the
138
workers to be doing useful work for the labor move-ment ?
MR. GOMPERS: I maintain that it is the duty of
such men whom you designate as labor leaders to
carry the word and message and to preach the doc-
trine and the gospel of justice to labor, to any placeon earth, and to any people on earth; to defend that
doctrine; to promote a better understanding amongany and all. It is the duty of every leader to makehis cause known wherever the opportunity presentsitself.
MR. HILLQUIT: For the benefit and advantage of
the working class, is it not?
MR. GOMPERS: Absolutely and alone.
MR. HILLQUIT : And is it not likewise in the inter-
ests of the large employers of labor to carry the gospelof their interests wherever they can, and particularlyinto the camp of labor?
MR,. GOMPERS: Whether it is their interests I amnot prepared to say, but I judge from my own ex-
perience that that is not the truth, and it is not the
fact.
MR. HILLQUIT : Mr. Gompers, do you know of the
existence of the National Manufacturers' Association ?
MR. GOMPERS: I do.
MR. HILLQUIT: Do you think that the National
Manufacturers' Association has no interest in carryingthe antMabor gospel or, if you want, the employers'
gospel, to all four quarters of the earth?
MR. GOMPERS : I know that the National Associa-
tion of Manufacturers is absolutely hostile to the labor
movement and everything it represents, but that is
not such an association in which a labor leader is
either accepted or tolerated. He therefore cannot
bring the doctrine and the message of labor there.
MR. HILLQUIT : Yes, but the National Association
of Manufacturers is an association of employers..
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, it is. But, Mr. Hillquit, don't
139
let us lose unnecessary time, because you haven't gotthat association. in mind.
.MR. HILLQUIT: We will come to it if you will justwait. When I referred to the National Associationof Manufacturers, I meant to bring out the point that
it is in the interests of the employers to actively organ-ize a warfare against organized labor. Do you agreewith that?
MR. GOMPERS: Primarily that is its avowed pur-pose. It has a greater purpose, and that is to preventorganization of working people to protect themselvesor to promote their interests. As a matter of fact the
president of that organization, only a few days ago,declared that he was going to form a new unionover our heads.
MR. HILLQUIT : That new union, in this case, wasnot to be a bona fide labor union, but a scab union,as you understand it.
MR. GOMPERS: I might say it is treason to the
labor movements and treason to the interests of labor.
MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, isn't that, .at
any rate, to your mind a manifestation of the fact that
employers in their relation to employes and to the
labor movement, will be guided by their economic in-
terests ?
MR. GOMPERS : Generally speaking, yes ; but the
largest number of employers are not members- of that
organization, and are not in accord with that associa-
tion. In addition, let me say, that I know that there
are quite a number of employers who belong to the
National Association of Manufacturers because of the
trade advantages which are secured through the otherfeatures and branches of the activity of the National
Association of Manufacturers.
MR. HILLQUIT: Admitting that the employingclasses have certain economic interests opposed to the
working classes, would you think it natural to expect
140
that they would organize in defense, of their interests
and against the organized labor movement?MR,. GOMPERS : If they organized at all for the con-
sideration of that subject, that would be the purpose.MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, do you know the
history and origin of the National Civic Federation?MR. GOMPERS: I do.
MR. HILLQUIT: By whom was it organized?MR. GOMPERS: By Mr. Ralph M. Easley, together
with some businessmen and publicists and a few work-men in the City of Chicago.MR. HILLQUIT : When it became a national institu-
tion was it not the late Mark Hanna who was its first
leading spirit?MR. GOMPERS: No, sir, that is a Socialist misrep-
resentation of the facts.
MR. HILLQUIT: Was Mr. Mark Hanna connectedwith the organization at all, so far as you know?MR. GOMPERS: Many years after its first formation.
MR. HILLQUIT: When it became an institution of
national scope was Mr. Hanna connected with it?
MR. GOMPERS: After it had become an institution
of national scope, and a considerable time after.
MR. HILLQUIT: And while he was so connected,was not he rather a leading figure in the Federation?
MR. GOMPERS : He was for two years its presidentPresident of the National Civic Federation. May
I suggest at 'the start that when you speak of the
American Federation of Labor you designate its
name, and when you speak of the Civic Federation
you designate it by its name, and you do not confusethe record by the indefinite word "Federation" as
applied equally to both.
MR. HILLQUIT: You would not want to have the
American Federation of Labor mistaken for the Na-tional Civic Federation?
MR. GOMPERS: Oh, I would not want by your in-
directions and insinuations to create such confusion.
141
Mi:. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, were not and are
not some of the leading members of the NationalCivic Federation very well known capitalists ?
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: Will you name some of them?MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Hanna, Mr. Seth l.-.u. Mr.
Andrew Carnegie, Mr. BelmontMR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Schwab?MR. GOMPERS: No.MR. HILLQUIT: Was Mr. Schwab never a member
of the National Civic Federation?
MR. GOMPERS: Not to my knowledge Mr. Brown,of the New York Central Railroad and I think Mr.Delano no? Mr. Delano says he was not. Oh,quite a number of large employers of labor.
MR. HILLQUIT: And the object of the Federation,
among other things, was to adjust certain labor dis-
putes, was it not?
MR. GOMPERS: It was not.
MR. HILLQUIT: Doesn't the Civic Federation main-tain a department of Mediation, Arbitration, and other
instrumentalities for the adjustment of labor disputes .
J
MR. GOMPERS: It has a department of Mediation.
It makes no efforts at arbitration, unless called uponto do so voluntarily by both sides. It has brought to-
gether employers and workingmen engaged in tremen-
dously important disputes, who, it seemed, could not
be brought together for the purpose of discussing their
diverse points of view and diverse interests; and the
result has been that agreements have been reached
between large bodies of workers and large employers,the terms and conditions of labor being improved, to
the mutual satisfaction at least temporarily to the
mutual satisfaction of both parties to the dispute.
MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, has not the Civic
Federation also taken a stand on various other prac-tical problems of the labor movement and labor legis-
lation?
142
MR,. GOMPERS: Never, unless it was adhered to
by the representatives of the working people.
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir, but with such adherence
the Civic Federation has undertaken such work, has
it not?
MR. GOMPERS: Not undertaken it, but aided in it.
MR. HILLQUIT: Aided in it?
MR. GOMPERS: Aided the working people in their
organized capacity to accomplish it.
MR. HILLQUIT : Foe instance, in the propaganda for
a Workmen's Compensation Act?
MR. GOMPERS: Yes, and since you have mentionedthe Workmen's Compensation Act, it is due to the
American labor movement to say that immediatelyupon the close of the session last evening, I called upon the 'phone Mr. Daniel Harris, President of the
New York State Federation of Labor, and asked himas to the connection of yourself and the Socialist
Party in the work of securing a Workmen's Compen1
sation Act for the State of New York, and he in-
formed me and showed me the record, that the bill
which you advocated was one which was impossibleof enactment by the Legislature of the State of NewYork. It required specifically that there should be
an appropriation of one million dollars ; that a mem-ber of the Commission shall be a Socialist, and it con-
tained such other provisions as were not only impos-sible of enactment, but repugnant to the interests of
the working people of the State of New York;that
they could not and would not stand for the bill and
that, as a matter of fact, it was a species of assistance
such as we find in Legislatures and which, under a
pretense of kindliness for the legislation under con-
sideration will kill and defeat the very object of the
bill;and that now there is upon the statute books of
the State of New York the best and most compre-hensive and generous Workmen's Compensation Law
143
that prevails in any State or in any country on theface of the globe.CHAIRMAN WALSH : The question was, in this case,
Mr. Gompers, whether or not the National Civic Fed-eration advocated the last Workmen's CompensationAct. Is that it?
MR. HILLQUIT : A Workmen's Compensation Act.
CHAIRMAN WALSH: Did it or not?MR. GOMPERS: It did.
MR. HILLQUIT: Then, Mr. Gompers, your belief
is that the capitalists who hav come into the CivicFederation and have led its movements for solution ofcertain labor problems, have done so for the benefit ofthe working class?
MR. GOMPERS: Your assumption is wrong whenyou say that they have led the National Civic Fed-eration.
MR. HILLQUIT : They have participated in its work,have they?MR. GOMPERS: Yes, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT : Now, Mr. Gompers, have they done
so, in your opinion, for the benefit of organized labor?
M.R. GOMPERS: I think they have done it in an at-
tempt to secure some improvement in the conditions
of the working people. I should say, for instance, that
in the matter of workmen's compensation, the Civic
Federation had a committee for over a year studyingthat subject. Among them, Mr. Tecumseh Shermanand others. They had experts from all over the coun-
try, and they formulated a bill. When the New YorkState Federation of Labor declared that it would not
stand for that bill, the Civic Federation immediatelywithdrew it from consideration.
MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, I thought we were
agreed on brief questions and brief answers for the
little time we still have. Your answer, then, is that
the men you named did work in the Civic Federation,
with a desire to help labor ?
144
MR. GOMPERS: I did not say that.
MR. HILLQUIT: What did you say?
MR. GOMPERS: I said they endeavored, in so far as
they could, to help in the formulation of a bill onworkmen's compensation that would be helpful andbeneficial.
MR. HILLQUIT: Pardon me. I am not referringto workmen's compensation alone. I am referring to
the motives of the capitalists you have named and T
am asking you whether you believe that these capi-talists have been giving their time and their workof the Civic Federation for the benefit of the workingclasses.
MR. GOMPERS: I will say that I don't know their
motives. I simply know their acts, and I say that
there has never been an action taken by the National
Civic Federation that was hostile to the interests of
the working people.
MR. HILLQUIT: You have stated before, Mr. Gom-pers, that you believe there is no harmony between the
interests of the employing classes and those of the
workers, and that you believe that the workers must
depend upon their own efforts as workers, withoutthe interventions of "intellectuals," or others, to
secure improvements. Now, I ask you: Do you be-
lieve that they can secure such improvements throughthe intervention of capitalists of the type that youhave named in the Civic Federation?
MR. GOMPERS: First, when you speak of the "in-
tellectuals" to whom I referred, I say that I meanthe intellectuals who undertake to dominate our move-ment. The National Civic Federation have never at-
tempted to dominate the affairs of our movement.And, second, I do not know what motives they have.
I simply know their acts. It is most difficult for anyone to determine even your motive or my motive. I
only can judge of people's acts, and I know their acts
145
in the Civic Federation have never been hostile lo
the interests of the working people.MR. HILLQUIT: Then you think it is perfectly
proper for an official representative of the AmericanFederation of Labor to co-operate with well-known
capitalist employers for common ends?
MR. GOMPERS: There is no such thing as that uponwhich your question is predicated.MR. HILLQUIT: Answer the question, whether you
think it proper or not.
MR. GOMPER.S: This is another one of those ques-tions the answer to which will convict.
MR. HILLQUIT: It might, Mr. Gompers.MR. GOMPERS: Yes, and it will.
MR. HILLQUIT: You think so?
MR. GOMPERS: Mr. Hillquit, I may not be quite so
clever, but at least I shall try to be truthful and assume
nothing unless I have a basis for it. There is no such
thing as co-operation between the leaders of the labor
movement and the leaders of the National Civic Fed-eration. So far as I am concerned, I can go anywherewhere men assemble, and where they consider ques-tions affecting the working people. 1 can meet withthem and bring the message of labor to them, and
argue and contend as best I can with them for the
rights of the working people, and if I can influence
them to an act of helpfulness toward any one thing in
which the working people are interested, I have ac-
complished something. I have never felt that I havecome away with my skirts besmirched, or my char-
acter impaired, or my determination to toil and
struggle for the working people impeded or impairedin any way.MR. HILLQUIT: And you think it is perfectly feas-
ible and possible for a labor leader to influence the
large employers and capitalists in the National Civic
Federation to take measures for the benefit of organ-ized labor?
146
MR. GOMPERS: That is not the question. I will ap-
peal to the devil and his mother-in-law to help labor
if labor can be aided in that way.MR. HILLQUIT: And will you co-operate with them?CHAIRMAN WALSH : Please proceed to some other
question.MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, do you not think
there is a contradiction between your previous state-
ment to the effect that there is an antagonism betweenthe interests of employers and of employes; that the
struggles of the workers are directed against the
employers, and that those struggles must be con-
ducted by themselves as workers and your activities
in the National Civic Federation?
MR. GOMPERS: No. As a matter of fact the Na-tional Civic Federation is quite as emphatically damned
by the National Association of Manufacturers as it
is by you and your associates, because the National
Association of Manufacturers say that it is dominated
by the labor leaders.
MR. HILLQUIT: Do you agree with them, the Na-tional Manufacturers' Association?
MR. GOM PERS : I should prefer not to say. I wouldnot care to weaken such influence as T might have with
the National Civic Federation by claiming that I dodominate it.
MR. HILLQUIT : Mr. Gompers, you are familiar withthe trade union movement in other countries of the
world ?
MR. COMPELS : Yes, sir, fairly well.
MR. HILLQUIT: Can you name a single instance in
any country of the world where representatives of
the trade union movement have any affiliation similar
to that existing between some of the leaders of the
American Federation of Labor and the National Civic
Federation ?
MR. GOMPERS: As a matter of fact, there is no suchaffiliation here as that which you refer to.
147
MR. HILLQUIT: You hold membership in the Na-tional Civic Federation?
MR. GOMPERS: I do not, sir; there is no such thingas membership.MR. HILLQUIT: Aren't you an officer of the Civic
Federation?
MR. GOMPERS: I am.
MR. HILLQUIT: But not a member?MR. GOMPERS: There is no such thing. It is a
voluntary association of men who are willing to giveaid or to secure aid. They simply attend. The officers
are simply a matter of administrative what is it they
perform ?
MR. HILLQUIT: Whatever it is. Does anybody ap-
point or elect the officers of the National Civic Fed-eration ?
MR. GOMPERS: Those who may come to the annual
meetings.MR. HILLQUIT: Those who happen to come in?
MR. GOMPER^: Yes.
MR. HILLQUIT: And they elect?
MR. GOMPERS: Yes.
MR. HILLQUIT: And you are such elected officer?
MR. GOMPERS: Yes.
MR. HILLQUIT: I would like to ask whether youknow any analogous example anywhere in the worldof where the officers of a national labor movementhold office in a body similar to the National Civic
Federation ?
MR. GOMPERS: No, that is impossible.MR. HILLQUIT: Of course.
MR. GOMPERS : As a matter of fact, there isn't anycapitalist say, for instance in Germany, who wouldcondescend to meet with a representative of labor.
And yet, let me call your attention to this fact that,
in the strike of the building trades in Berlin which,
subsequently, extended all through Germany two years
ago, a Board of Arbitration was selected, and there
148
were capitalists and public officials on it, and not onelabor man.MR. HILLQUIT: Is that the closest analogy to the
National Civic Federation you can think of?
MR. GOMPERS: No. In England, when the coal
strike occurred two years ago, there were conferences,associated efforts, between the coal miners, the mineowners and representatives of what you would termthe capitalistic government.MR. HILLQUIT: Yes; those are all special cases of
temporary co-operation, but not definite, permanentorganizations, are they?MR. GOMPERS: All for a definite purpose, and the
only way in which I am engaged in any work of the
Civic Federation is in cases of that character.
MR. HILLQUIT: You say you are familiar with the
trade movement abroad. Will you please state whichmovement in the European countries you consider
the strongest?MR. GOMPER,S: Strongest in numbers, you mean?MR. HILLQUIT: In numbers, things accomplished,
and everything else that goes to make up success?
MR. GOMPERS: In Great Britain?
MR. HILLQUIT: And next to Great Britain?
MR. GOMPERS: Germany?MR. HILLQUIT: Then?MR. GOMPERS: I think that I might say, like the
boy, "there ain't no then."
MR. HILLQUIT : How about Austria ?
MR. GOMPERS : That is very poorly organized.MR. HILLQUIT: How about Belgium?MR. GOMPERS : Poorer organized.MR. HILLQUIT: And how about the Scandinavian
countries, Sweden, Norway and Denmark?MR. GOMPERS : They were better organized before
their general strike, about five years ago. That strike
has weakened the movement there very materially.MR. HILLQUIT: Now, with respect to actual ac-
149
complishment, the attainment of definite measure^ of
relief, which would you place ahead of the re^t
MR, GOMPERS: Which measures of relief?
MR. HILLQUIT: I mean reform measures in the
nature of labor legislation, social insurance and siiiiilar
measures ?
MR. GOMPERS: I would say Germany. Next comes
England.MR. HILLQUIT : Yes, then would you take Belghim .
J
MR. GOMPERS: No.MR. HILLQUIT: What would you take next?
MR. GOMPERS: I would take Austria.
MR. HILLQUIT: And then?
MR. GOMPERS: Belgium.MR. HILLQUIT: Now, Mr. Gompers, do you know
the general political affiliations, attainments and prac-tices of the German trade union movement?MR. GOMPERS: I do, sir.
MR. HILLQUIT: Are the German trade unionists
pretty closely allied to the Socialist Party of Germany ?
MR. GOMPERS: They are in their membership, andthere is a sort of a common work, too. But this, too,
must be borne in mind in regard to Germany: Thetrade unions of Germany have absolutely no right oflawful political activity. I have said, Mr. Hillquit,that if I were in Germany, I would belong to the So-cialist Party, not because I would give adhesion to the
philosophy of Socialism, but because it is the only pro-
testing democratic party in Germany.MR. HILLQUIT: And, as a matter of fact, Mr.
Gompers, the large bulk of trade unionists in Germanysupports the candidates of the Socialist Party in elec-
tions ?
MR. GOMPER.S: As a rule that is true.
MR. HILLQUIT: And also a number of prominenttrade union leaders are Socialist members of Parlia-
ment, including the International Trade Union Sec-
retary, Karl Legien?
150
MR. GOMPERS: Yes. You know that Mr. Legien
belongs to the "Revisionists" in the Socialist Party,or the Bernstein School, which recognizes the abso-
lute economic independence of the trade union move-ment from the political Socialist Party.MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, but that has nothing to do
with the case.
MR. GOMPERS : That is what you may think.
MR. HILLQUIT: Well, let's proceed. Mr. Legienis a member in good standing of the Socialist Party,and also a leader in the trade labor movement. Doyou know the political activity of the trade unionists
in England?MR. GOMPERS: I do.
MR. HILLQUIT: How does it express itself?
MR. GOMPERS: In an independent political party.MR. HILLQUIT: Known as the Labor Party?MR* GOMPERS: Labor Party.MR. HILLQUIT: In which the Socialist organiza-
tion known as the Independent Labor Party, and an-
other Socialist organization known as the Fabian So-
city, are officially represented? Is that correct?
MR. GOMPERS: I think so, yes, sir.
MR,. HILLQUIT: And do you know the political
activity of the workers in Belgium?MR. GOMPERS: Belgium is fairly representative of
the political action of the workers. As a matter of
fact, the Socialists of Brussels dominate the oftices
and dominate whatever of the labor movement there
is in Belgium. That, as a consequence, has left the
Belgium workmen the lowest in Europe in economicconditions. As a matter of fact, wherever the work-men are most active politically, there they lose sightof their economic interests, believing that by castingtheir vote once a year they can secure remedial legis-lation that will offset the work of trade unionism.
MR. HILLQUIT: Mr. Gompers, isn't it a fact that
the American Federation of Labor is the only large
151
national body of organized workers which has no inde-
pendent political policy, party, organization or affilia-
tion of its own ?
MR. GOMPERS: It is improper to place the Amer-ican Federation of Labor in that position, because it
has an independent political policy a policy so politi-
cally independent that it is independent of the Socialist
Party, too. It looks to achievements rather than the
instrumentality of achievement, and we have achievedin the American labor movement more real better-
ment for the working people than has been accom-
plished by any other labor movement in the world.
_ CHAIRMAN WALSH : Mr. Hillquit, this is intensely
interesting to'me, as I know it is to the balance of the
Commission, but we must bring this to a close, and so
I will, on behalf of the Commission, thank you verymuch for your contribution to our work, and will bringit to a close.
MR. HILLQUIT: Well, I understand, I will have a
chance
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Yes, you may be put on in
rebuttal.
MR. HILLQUIT: Thank you.
152
FIFTH SESSION.
Socialism and Trade Unionism/
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Please come to order. Call
your next witness, Mr. Thompson.Max S. Hayes, called as a witness, testified as
follows :
MR. TOHMPSON : Mr. Hayes, will you please giveus your name, address and your occupation?MR. HAYES: Max S. Hayes, 979, Parker Drive,
Cleveland, Ohio. I am editor of the "Cleveland Citi-
zen," organizer for the National Typographical Union,National Committeeman from Ohio for the Socialist
Party, and I hold a few other similar positions.
MR. THOMPSON: Then, from your statement, Mr.
Hayes, we are to understand that you are a memberof a union affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, and also you are a member of the Socialist
Party?MR. HAYES: Yes, sir.
MR. THOMPSON: And have been an organizer for
both in the past?MR. HAYES: Yes, sir.
MR. THOMPSON : Mr. Hayes, did you hear the tes-
timony which was given here yesterday by Mr.
Gompers ?
MR,. HAYES: I did.
MR. THOMPSON : I would like to have you state, as
you see it, the position occupied by the American Fed-eration of Labor, its aims and objects, and the position
occupied by the Socialist Party and its aims and ob-
153
jects ; wherein they agree and in what respect theydiffer?
MR. HAYES: Well, in a general way, the aims and
objects of the American Federation of Labor, so far
as its political and social demands are concerned, are
quite similar to those contained in the ''ImmediateDemands" of the platform of the Socialist I 'arty.
Holding a sort of dual position in the two organiza-tions and having attended the conventions of the
American Federation of Labor during the last fifteen
years as a delegate. I have followed the trend quite
closely and, naturally, have gained some convictions
upon the principles upon which both organizationsare founded. I want it understood that I am not here
speaking as a representative of either organization. I
have not been delegated by the Socialist Party, nor
by the American Federation of Labor, to express the
views of their memberships. I give my own impres-sions. In other words. I do not wish to pose as a
labor leader or a Socialist leader. I would prefer to be
classified as an ordinary labor and Socialist agitator.I sometimes become provoked when I am referred to
as a labor leader or a Socialist leader because my im-
pression of both movements is that they lead them-selves largely, but have spokesmen, advocates, agita-
tors, etc. In my capacity as a delegate to the Amer-ican Federation of Labor, and as a member of the
Socialist Party, as editor of the Citizen for the last
twenty years, as a participant in the trade unicnmovement for thirty years, and the Socialist move-ment for about 19 years, I have come to the conclu-
sion that the American Federation of Labor is the
logical economic organization for this country. I haveno sympathy with the so-called Industrial Workersof the World, any more than I had for the Socialist
Trade and Labor Alliance which was organized priorto the I. W. W., or with the American Labor Union.
I do not agree with Mr. Debs on the one hand in his
154
views as to the form of organization which the labor
movement should take on the industrial field. Nor doI agree with Brother Sam Gompers on the other hand,in his opposition to the Socialist movement or to the
progressive demands made by the Socialist movement.
There is not the difference between the member-ship of the Socialist Party and the membership of the
trade unions that people are frequently led to believe
exists, because of the contentions, the rivalries, the
jealousies or the animosities that may exist betweenthe so-called leaders of these movements. I do not
wish to deal particularly with individuals, because, in
the long run, there is not very much gained by criticis-
ing individuals. When I speak of individuals I wantit understood that I am dealing with their views, withtheir qualities. Whatever antipathy may exist be-
tween Mr. Debs and Mr. Gompers as well known rep-resentatives of the organizations with which they are
affiliated, does not exist among the rank and file.'
To the uninformed individual, it might appearthat there is a sort of gulf, an inseparable barrier, be-
tween the Socialist organization on the one side, andthe labor movement on the industrial field on the other
side.
Now, as a matter of fact, the very large bulk of the
membership, a majority I would say, of the Socialist
Party, is composed of trade unionists. I can speakfrom experience, when I say that. As representativeof the Typographical Union, I have often been very
materially assisted by Socialist organizations. For-
instance, in cities and towns in the Middle West, wherewe had no local organization, and where there ap-
peared to be difficulty in getting the printers to forma Union and to affiliate with the International or-
ganization, I have written letters to members of So-
cialist locals and enlisted their co-operation in inter-
esting printers in the subject of organization. Later
155
followed up the correspondence by a personal visit,
with the result that we formed a union.
That is my individual experience. And, un-
doubtedly, many International Organizers I am mak-
ing a distinction between International organizers andthe paid organizers of the American Federation of
Labor, those directly connected with headquarters in
Washington, have been assisted by Socialist organiza-tions in the smaller towns. We have Socialist or-
ganizations in hundreds of towns where there are
no unions, and they are often used for the purposeof securing the formation of trade unions. I mightsit here and explain for an hour or more the co-opera-tion that exists between the memberships of the So-cialist Party and the labor unions, particularly in the
smaller towns of the country.MR. THOMPSON : May I interrupt you at this
point ?
MR. HAYES: Yes, sir.
MR. THOMPSON: Is it known in the Socialist
Party that you are a member of the A. F. of L. ?
MR. HAYES: Oh, certainly.
MR. THOMPSON : Has there ever been any objec-tion to your membership in the A. F. of L. by the
Socialist Party?MR. HAYES: Absolutely none.
MR. THOMPSON : Has there ever been any objection
by the American Federation of Labor to your mem-bership and participation as an official in the Socialist
Party?MR. HAYES : None whatsoever.
MR. THOMPSON: Does that condition which exists
with reference to you exist with reference to thou-
sands of other workers ?
MR. HAYES: It does.
MR. THOMPSON : Is there a fair percentage of mem-bership in the American Federation of Labor, in youropinion, who are Socialists, avowedly such?
156
MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. There is a very large per-
centage. I am not able to give you exact figures,but you can form some opinion from the convention
proceedings. If you will follow the A. F. of L. pro-
ceedings and those who are delegates to the con-ventions of the American Federation of Labor knowit you will find that there is a steady increase in the
number of representatives from the National unions,who are also Socialists.
Take the miners, just as an illustration. A verylarge percentage of the United Mine Workers to-dayare Socialists. That is particularly true in the Middle
West, in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. Some of the
mining towns in those states are almost solidly So-
cialist, as is demonstrated by the votes cast in the
elections of delegates to their national conventions,
usually held in Indianapolis. The same is true of the
brewery workers, the machinists, and many other
trades.
No objection has ever been raised by the Socialist
Party. In fact the Socialist Party, the Socialist pressand the prominent Socialists who do not happen to be
in a position where they themselves can affiliate with
trade unions, have advised and constantly insisted that
the rank and file of the Socialist membership, when-ever eligible, should join trade unions and assist in
the struggles on the industrial field.
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Hayes, you have said that
you believe that the American Federation of Labor is
the logical leader of the working class in this country ?
MR. HAYES: Yes, sir.
MR. THOMPSON: And, for that reason, you objectto the Industrial Workers of the World, to the So-
cialist Labor Party, to the American Labor Union,-and to any other organization which undertakes to
divide the field. Am I correct in that statement?
MR. HAYES r Yes, sir.
MR. THOMPSON: Why, then, do you co-operate
157
with the Socialist Party, and what is the reason that
makes these two bodies, the American Federation of
Labor, and the Socialist Party, capable of existingside by side and not dividing that field?
MR,. HAYES: I am a member of the trade union
movement, because it is the bread and butter organiza-tion. It is a movement that meets problems on the
industrial field, as has been stated by President Gom-pers, from day to day, in reducing hours of labor,
raising wages, gaining more decent working condi-
tions in shops, mines and on the railroads of the
country. That is an absolute necessity. But I recog-nize the limitations of the trade union movement, andI have come to the conclusion that it is absolutely
necessary to also have a political expression of the
wants and desires of the working class in order to
place ourselves in a position of equality in wagingthe contest with the capitalists, who organize politi-
cally and industrially as well.
I recall when some of the ultra-conservatives in
the American Federation of Labor opposed any nnd
every form of political action, contending what the
Industrial Workers of the World now claim : Thatthe workers can secure by direct action without the
assistance of governmental machinery whatever de-
mands they may make; that they can achieve by purelyeconomic action, a condition where they will be able
to secure the full product of their toil.
We had, for instance, in the Kansas City conventionin 1898, again in the Detroit convention, in the Louis-ville convention, debated those points, and prominentmembers and officers of the American Federation of
Labor took the position that the labor movementshould keep its hands off political manoeuvering in its
efforts to gain advantages.
But there has been a sort of a steady evolution even
among those conservatives to the extent that theynow operate through what they call a Labor Represen-
158
tative Committee, adopting the name of the Labor
Representative Committee of Great Britain. That is
merely the name, however. There were, I believe,
three individuals selected at the conference in Wash-
ington to steer the labor movement along political
lines, whereas in Great Britain the Labor Representa-tive Committee developed into the Labor Party, with
which the Independent Labor Party of which Keir
Hardy is one of the prominent spokesmen, is affili-
ated, and with which the British Socialist Party will
undoubtedly affiliate within the next few months.There is a referendum vote on now on that very propo-sition. So that there will be a combination in GreatBritain of those three or four parties, including theFabian Society.
And now, do you want to ask questions ?
MR. THOMPSON : I want to ask you directly, isn't
it the fact to-day that the American Federation ofLabor is taking a very direct interest in legislation
affecting the welfare of the workingmen of this
country ?
MR. HAYES: Yes, that is what I intended to de-
velop, to show that the officers of the American Fed-eration of Labor have advocated political action andthe election of members to Congress who are nowclassified as a Labor Group, in a loose manner. Prac-
tically every member of the Labor Group, however,maintains his adherence and responsiblity to his politi-
cal party. Thus, for instance, Secretary of LaborWilson made the public statement that he cannot andwill not be regarded as a labor representative. He.was elected as a Democrat and, logically, affiliated him-self with his Party in Congress. He is, however, a
labor man. Now, there comes the division in the
labor movement. The conservative elements are in-
clined to the view that more can be accomplished bv
acting through the old parties in the election of mem-bers to Congress, while the radical elements, \vith
159
which I generally affiliate in the American Federation
conventions, insist that the only logical, definite andsubstantial manner to make progress is through a
Party that is composed wholly and solely of labor
men. That is, we contend that it is essential that webe as conscious of our solidarity as workers on the
political field as we are on the industrial field. Wemaintain that it is an absurdity to make, demands uponthe industrial field from the employing class and tlien
turn around and elect attorneys to Congress and to
the State Legislatures, who are dominated, as lias
been proven in any number of investigations, by large
corporations and, naturally, side with the employerswhen it comes to a crisis, and make it difficult to
secure the enactment of legislation which we havebeen demanding for many years, such as' the curbingof the injunction curse in labor controversies, amend-
ing the Sherman Law, and so on. It is difficult to
force those measures through the National Congressor the State Legislatures, because of the fact that
these attorneys and capitalists, manufacturers, mer-
chants, etc., understand their class interest much bet-
ter than the workers understand their class interest.
Hence, in every contest where the lines are sharply
drawn, the capitalist representatives usually are op-
posed to the enactment of remedial legislation for
labor. In this country we have had a tremendous
advantage over the workers in Europe, who werementioned yesterday. The workers in Europe have
had more to contend with than we have had in this
country. They have been held in a condition of in-
dustrial slavery for centuries, from the feudal state
down to the present capitalist system of industry. Theworkers in Europe have found the class lines drawn
against them, the lines of privilege. The church and
State were allied against them. Here we have been
practically free and yet the workers are paying abso-
160
lutely no attention to their political power so far as
going along independent lines is concerned.
MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Hayes, did I understand youcorrectly that one of the lines of demarcation betweenthe American Federation of Labor and the Socialist
Party is this: That in matters of Legislation the
American Federation of Labor will affiliate indis-
criminately with any other Party if it may be able to
carry its purposes, whereas the Socialist Party be-
lieves in organizing a Party of its own to stand for
whatever it advocates?
MR. HAYES: Yes, sir.
MR. THOMPSON: Now, in regard to the concreteor present industrial situation, the Socialist Party be-
lieves in letting that field lie in the hands of the Amer-ican Federation of Labor to adjust the present-dayworking hours, wages and conditions?
MR. HAYES: Yes, sir.
MR. THOMPSON: Whereas, they look forward to a
programme which deals more particularly with the
philosophy or theory of what Society should be ulti-
mately ?
MR. HAYES : In the political sense, yes.
MR. THOMPSON: That is correct?
MR. HAYES: Yes.
MR. THOMPSON: Now, Mr. Hayes, coming downto one or two concrete questions. Mr. Gompers stated
yesterday, if I remember it rightly, that the AmericanFederation of Labor would take a stand against the
limitation of the hours of work, by legislation. Wasthat his personal opinion or is that the general view of
the American Federation of Labor on that subject?MR. HAYES: Well, it certainly is his personal
opinion. I don't know of any instance, nationally or
in any State, where there has been any oppositionfrom the trades unions against the enactment of an
eight-hour law. In fact, it has been the cardinal prin-
ciple of the American Federation of Labor to demand
161
the enactment of an eight-hour law to affect not onlythe workers directly employed by Uncle Sam, but thosewho are furnishing supplies to the United States
Government. We have the same law in States. I donot know .but what Mr. Gompers was misunderstoodsomewhat.COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: That Certainly could
not have been Mr. Gompers' position yesterday.MR. HAYES: As I understand Mr. Gompers' con-
tention against the enactment of the eight-hour law,it was that he would oppose its application to businessas a whole, to private business ?
COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: Yes/MR. HAYES: Now, I entirely disagree with Mr.
Gompers upon that point. I don't believe there are
any considerable number of unions, none at least that
I can call to mind, that would oppose a general national
sweeping eight-hour law to extend to every man,woman and child in the country engaged in indus-
trial work, any more than they would on the minimumwage question.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : The matter is a little confusedin my mind, so that when Mr. Gompers comes backon the stand he should be asked the question by coun-sel straight out. Then we will not need to go into
the difference, if any, of the recollection of the Com-mission on the matter. Now, as I take it, the ques-tion has been fully answered, that Mr. Haves is in
favor of legislation limiting the hour., of labor of
the workers wherever it comes from, and that his
observation has been that the American Federation
of Labor likewise has taken that position.
MR. HAYES : No, the American Federation of Laborhas not, to my knowledge, gone on record in favorof a general eight-hour law to be enacted by the
National or State government covering the entire in-
dustrial field, but merely so far as it related to em-
ployes of the Government, National, State and local.
162
MR. THOMPSON : Is the American Federation of
Labor committed to a programme of hostility to legis-lation in favor of the working classes?
MR,. HAYES : No, sir, it is not.
MR. THOMPSON : As a member of the AmericanFederation of Labor you would say that the natural
tendency of that body would be to sympathize withand to help the passage of legislation leading to the
improvement of the condition of the working class?
MR. HAYES: Oh, yes, certainly. The AmericanFederation of Labor has always stood behind any-thing in the nature of progressive legislation.
MR. THOMPSON : In other words, in the politicalfield as well as in the industrial field the AmericanFederation of Labor stands for progressive pro-
grammes so far as the workingman's interests are
concerned; is that correct?
MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. The only objection I haveis that it does not go far enough.MR. THOMPSON : I understand that. I just want
to get the general lines laid down here so that the
Commission may understand it. Now, Mr. Hayes,with reference to the limitations, you heard Mr. Gom-pers say that the American Federation of Labor placesno limit on the demands it may make from time to
time with reference to wages or hours, or rather, withreference to getting a larger share or, perhaps, the
whole share of \he product ;is that correct ?
MR. HAYES: Yes, sir. I believe he expressed the
general opinion. In fact, I was very pleased to hearhim make that admission.
MR. THOMPSON : Would not that be the natural
position of the American Federation of Labor? It
must be that position.
MR. HAYES: I cannot see how it could take anyother position if the thing is put up squarely to the
membership.
163
MR. THOMPSON : Mr. Chairman, I am through withthe witness.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Any questions ?
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Yes; I would like to
ask Mr. Hayes a question or two. It may not have a
direct bearing on the testimony, but I want to get an
understanding myself of a certain phase here, be-
cause you take a somewhat different ground from anyexponent of your faith that I have seen. Bear in
mind, I am not affiliated with either side, the A. Fof L. or the Socialist Party. Do I understand that
you regard the trade union movement or, to narrowit somewhat, the American Federation of Labor, as
the proper form of machinery for realizing such bene-fits as can be gained for the workers from day to daywithout waiting for the success of this or that im-
provement that might be brought about by political
action, while at the same time, in your character as a
citizen, , you believe that the Socialist Party is the
proper form of the expression of your legislative be-
liefs and the means for securing the same? Am I
interpreting your meaning right or not?
MR. HAYES : Substantially. I would like to amplifythat to some extent. I regard the American Federa-tion of Labor the legitimate, recognized, organizedindustrial movement on this continent. It is not i>er-
fect. But my contention is that the American Fed-eration of Labor is broadening from the purely craft
or trade form of organization into an industrial form.There are at least a dozen international unions affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor that are
industrial in their character, as the Miners, the
Brewery Workers and other bodies. The Machinists
only recently broadened out. They are now talkingabout merging three of the garment working trades
into one complete union. And right on that point I
take issue with the accusations made by representa-tives of the I. W. W. They laid such particular
%m-
164
phasis upon this point that it appealed in a largemeasure to many Socialists the country over,. I meanthe charge that the American Federation of Labor had
neglected the so-called common labor. I happened to
have a debate with a representative of the I. W. W.on this subject in Seattle last November, and chal-
lenged him to produce the proofs of this accusation.
And I showed by the records and the figures, whichI expected President Gompers to submit to the Com-mission yesterday, but probably he overlooked, that
one union, the Hod Carriers, had a larger increase
last year in membership than the entire membershipof the I. W. W. is to-day. The United Mine Workersand Brewery Workers include thousands upon thou-
sands of unskilled, so-called "common laborers" in
their ranks.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Then the AmericanFederation of Labor has organized more unskilled
workers than the I. W. W. ?
MR. HAYES: Most certainly.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Then on the former
question virtually you, as a citizen, are a Socialist ?
MR. HAYES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: As a worker you are
a trade unionist?
MR. HAYES: I am.COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Now, one further
question. I would like to ask your opinion on the
difference between the American and the continental
Socialist movement. Is it not true that continental
Socialism is more a movement of citizens than of
workers, on account of the disabilities they labor un-der as citizens which hamper them as workers?
MR. HAYES: It don't make any difference betweenthe workingman and the citizen; they are one and the
same. You c'annot separate them.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Does he not bear the
dual relation
165
MR. HAYES : He does bear a dual relation, yes, sir.
As a Socialist he is affiliated with the Socialist Demo-cratic Party or the Labor Party or the IndependentLabor Party, according to whatever country he lives
in, and likewise he is required to associate himselfwith a trade union.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Well, would you notdraw the same distinction in regard to him that youdid with regard to yourself, that politically he wouldbe a Socialist and in his capacity as worker, a tradeunionist ?
MR. HAYES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: So the two would be
blended there as is unnecessary here to a certain de-
gree, would they not, I mean as an absolute neces-
sity for their betterment?
MR. HAVES: Yes. Each carries out its own func-
tions; they are separate organizations. Likewise there
is a third agency called the Co-operative movement.It is a tri-partite agreement practically.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: That is all, Mr. Chair-
man.
COMMISSIONER RALLARD: You say that the A. F.
of L. and the Socialist Party both want to take a
larger share of labor's production?MR. HAYES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD: And they want finally to
lake it all?
MR. HAYES: Undoubtedly. Wealth should belongto him who produces it. The workers produce the
wealth, and consequently they should own the wealth.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD: As soon as they become
sufficiently powerful numerically they would simplytake it. whether those to whom it belonged wanted to
give it up or not?
MR. HAYES: I am not prepared to say }ust how theyare going to acquire it. If I had my way about it theywould certainly take the railways and the mines and
166
the steel mills and other great monopolies and operatethem under control of the government and probablywe would hire Brother Rockefeller as business agentof the oil division of the government, or Judge Garyas manager of the steel department ; but they wouldhave to be workers.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD: In other words, yonwould put men in charge of the different departmentswho you thought could handle those departments, nomatter what their previous condition had been?
MR. HAYES: Oh, yes; they would be superinten-dents.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD: I gather from the I. W.W. that they want to do the same thing, except theywould resort to force immediately to take it as soonas they felt they could, and the Socialist Party doesnot propose quite that just yet?MR. HAYES: The Socialist Party believes in organ-
izing workingmen politically in order to secure con-
trol of the law-making machinery, and doing it legally.The I. W. W., as I understand it, expects to accomplishit by so-called direct or mass-action. I do not hankerfor that sort of propaganda, because it would neces-
sarily injure the working masses millions of in-
dividuals.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD: That is all, Mr. Hayes.MR. HAYES : There is just one point, Mr. Chairman,
on which I would like to say something.CHAIRMAN WALSH : Very well. You may state it.
MR. HAYES: That is, with reference to the discus-
sion here yesterday about the minimum wage. Theminimum wage proposition has never been acted uponauthoritatively by the American, Federation of Labor.I do not believe, with President Gompers, that the
American Federation of Labor, though he probablyhas a right to speak for the American Federation of
Labor, while I have not, is committed against the
minimum wage. There has never been, to my knowl-
167
edge, any discussion on the question of a general mini-
mum wage law in any convention of the AmericanFederation of Labor or in the International Unions in
this country. The matter has been up for discussion
in State conventions and in local b> dies. For example,in the State of Ohio, at the Constitutional Conventionin 1912, a minimum wage amendment was submitted
to a referendum vote. It received the support of the
labor men in that Constitutional Convention Social-
ists and trade unionists about a dozen members of the
convention. From there it went to the people of the
state and it was endorsed. The minimum wage propo-sition or the amendment to the constitution of the
State of Ohio was endorsed generally by organizedlabor of that State. There is a movement now onfoot in the State of Ohio to secure the enactment ofa minimum wage law, but not on a basis prescribing
$3.00 or $3.50 or $4.00 as a minimum wage, but in
line with the constitutional provisions requiring the
appointment of a Commission to examine four timesa year the living conditions that exist in the largercities. They have to consider the cost of living : Rentfor a six- or seven-room house, clothing, food andother immediate necessaries. Upon the basis of suchcost of existence, whether it be $3.00 or $5.00 or $4.00a day, the wage will have to be paid, if the law is
passed, which is now being initiated and will be sub-
mitted to a referendum vote in the next year or two.
Undoubtedly other states will copy it, as they have ourWorkmen's Compensation Law. By the way, there is
another point I want to touch upon in just a fewwords. That the Workmen's Compensation Law in
Ohio was drafted and prepared by a Socialist, HarryD. Thomas. He has since died. But he was probablymore thoroughly acquainted with legislation pertain-
ing to compensation laws than any other man. Heprepared the data and submitted them to an attorney
entirely in sympathy with the idea, and went to the
168
legislature, and there it was adopted, and it was like-
wise adopted as an amendment to the constitution.
So much for the charge that the Socialists are inac-
tive in the matter of securing legislation for the better-
ment of the workers to-day, to-morrow and the next
day. We are always at it.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD: Just one point, you are
in favor of government ownership of public utilities,
as I gather railways and other public utilities ?
MR. HAYES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD: Well, in the experienceof those states where that has been done, do you feel
that the administration has been better than where it
is in the hands of private corporations?
MR.- HAYES: I believe so, all things considered.
Germany's railways are government-owned and oper-ated. They have been cited as an example, and those
opposing contend that they are not a success. Butwhen you take into consideration the fact that theywere nationalized in order to beat back the rising tide
of Socialism, and are operated by people who are
opposed to Socialism, you will realize that many econ-
omies could be introduced that they refuse to. Theywere primarily taken over for military purposes, as
a matter of fact. I might cite other examples of rail-
ways, but I am simply coming to the point that was
emphasized by Mr. Mellen in his examination in
Washington the other day, that it is either a case of
private monopoly or government-owned railways ; andI prefer government ownership to private monopolies.That is all.
COMMISSIONER LENNON: Mr. Hayes, do you be-
lieve that the application of the principles of Social-
ism would solve finally the problem of the distribution
of wealth, or is it a step in the evolutionary progressof the race?
MR. HAYES : Oh, it is a step, of course. The next
step in our evolution as a race. Centuries ago we had
169
the condition of slavery, then we evolved into feudal-
ism, then into capitalism. Now we are going towardsSocialism, and I might say, on this point that ten yearsago. when we discussed Socialism, we were con-founded with Anarchists and bomb-throwers, while
to-day we have reached the point where we are almost
respectable. Most people think they know somethingabout Socialism, and perhaps they are becoming a
little Socialistic themselves. So that when my friend
Gompers tries to ridicule the Socialist movement, hehad better be careful, because he doesn't know whatwill happen in the next ten years. He accuses the
Socialists of having purloined some of the demandsof the trade unions. He might have said that the
Bull Moosers stole some from the Socialists;
the
Democratic stole some, and probably the old Moss-back Republican Party may have grabbed a few of
our planks. One'thing they won't steal, and that is
the collective-ownership plank.
MORRIS HILLQUIT, recalled as a witness herein,further testified as follows:
CHAIRMAN WALSH : You may proceed, Mr. Hill-
quit, and answer anything that you see fit within the
time limit ; answer any part of what has gone beforein the testimony of Mr. Compers or Mr. St. John.MR. HILLQUIT: At the outset I desire to answer
two questions raised by Mr. Gompers in his testimony.The first refers to the character of the CompensationAct which the Socialists in the City of New Yorkdrafted and prepared some years ago. Mr. Gompers'statement was to the effect that it contained a demandfo~ the appointment of a Socialist as member of the
proposed Commission and also for an appropriation of
one million dollars by the State of New York. Thedraft in question was not of Socialist authorship ex-
clusively. It was prepared by the Socialists in con-
junction with representatives of the labor organiza-
170
tions of the City of Greater New York, that is, the
organizations of the American Federation of Laborin that City. 'When adopted, it represented the local
sentiment of the American Federation of Labor as
well as that of the Socialists. It made no require-ment for the appointment of a Socialist on the Com-mission. It did, however, contain a requirement to
the effect that the Commission be largely composed ofaccredited representatives of organized labor. As to
the million dollars appropriation, I don't recall it;but
I may say that if it provided for the sum of one million
dollars to be appropriated by the State of New Yorkfor the purpose of organizing a proper machinery for
the administration of a workmen's compensation sys-tem, the demand was exceedingly modest. The State
of New York, with its population of ten million or
more, the State of New York, which appropriates
sixty million dollars for improvement of canals andto help trade along, should consider it a mere pittanceto allow one million dollars to save the lives and limbsof its one million and a half industrial employes, and,Mr. Gompers, I believe, should be the last man in the
world to find it exorbitant.
Mr. Gompers has also stated that the Socialist rep-
resentative in Congress, Victor L. Berger, had voted
to sustain the veto power of the President of the
L'nited States. That statement I wish to deny. TheSocialist Party directly requires by its platform the
abolition of the Senate and of the veto power of the
President. Of course, the question of sustaining the
veto power of the President never came up in Con-
gress. What Mr. Gompers is pleased to construe as
such a vote. was. no doubt, a vote or votes on twomeasures, which Mr. Berger considered reactionaryand opposed to the best interests of the workers. lie
voted against the measures. The Pxe<ident of the
I'nited States happened to share his conception of it
and vetoed the bills after the majority had voted in
171
their favor. The bills then came up a second time,and they were still as reactionary and as bad as ever.
Mr. Berger consistently voted against them. Andthat is all there is to his voting to maintain the veto
power of the President of the United States.
This by way of rebuttal. And now I shall say a fewwords by way of summary on the relations of the So-cialist movement to the American Federation of Labor.Since the method of mutual cross-examination has
brought out a good many, but not all the conclusions,I shall add this briefly.
First of all, the matter, it seems to me, is one of
very large importance. The American Federation of
Labor and all other organized workers within or out-
side of the Federation represent about three million
persons. The Socialist Party at the last Presidential
election polled almost one million votes. We maylegitimately assume that for every male voter there
is a female non-voting Socialist sympathizer, and,
taking the men and women voters and non-voters wemay conservatively estimate the number of personsin the United States who support the Socialist philos-
ophy and programme to be likewise about three mil-
lions. The relation between those two powerful fac-
tors in the industrial and political world, seems to me,of importance, and I wish to state, for the benefit of
the Commission, the public at large, and the workingclass particularly, that whether for good or for evil,
the Socialist movement and the organized economiclabor movement must be considered ultimately -is one.
Born of the same conditions, having consciously or un-
consciously the same aims and objects, and leading to
the same result. The Socialist movement aims to secure
to the workers the full product of their labor and,
by the same token, to deprive the idlers of their un-
earned part of the general national product. It stands,
then, for the nationalization of industries; for the
collective ownership of means of operating those in-
172
dustries. The labor movement, it appears very clearlyfrom Mr. Gompers' statements, stands likewise for
an ever increasing share of the product to be givento the workers; for an ever decreasing share of the
product to be left to the nonjworkers, and Mr. Gom-
pers admitted that this process has no limitation andwill not stop before the entire product of the work is
turned over to the working class as a whole. Thus,
you see, substantially and ultimately, the two move-ments stand for the same thing. The distinction is
mainly one of the degree of consciousness. The So-cialists proceed upon a general social philosophy.
They have thought out the thing, they have askedthemselves where it leads to, they have drawn their
conclusions and formulated them in the Socialist pro-
gramme. The trade union movement, on the other
hand, as Mr. Gompers himself stated, is not concernedmuch with ultimate ends or social philosophies. It
works for immediate ends, but those ends lead event-
ually to the same point. There is also no great merit
in the distinction between political and economic func-
tions. The demand to abolish child labor in a certain
shop or a number of shops, or to introduce an eight-hour workday in a certain shop or in a number of
shops, is economic if made by the workers in those
shops on their employers. The same demands stated
broadly for an entire industry or an entire division
of the working class, and being formulated by way of
legal enactment, becomes political action. And it is
just because the Socialist stand for the larger nspectof the movement that their activity is more political,
and it is because the labor unions, while standing onthe same basis, do not have the larger vision that theyconsider their activity primarily economic. As to the
ultimate result, the two do not differ much from each
other. I make that statement to avert any misunder-
standing as to the attitude of the Socialist Party to-
ward the American Federation of Labor.
173
What Mr. Hayes has said here is not his individualview. It is the view of the Socialist Party at large.The Socialist Party is absolutely committed to a policyof friendship to organized labor, and unequivocallyrecognizes the American Federation of Labor to-dayas the main representative of organized labor. Thelittle tilt I had with my friend, Mr. Gompers, wasvery largely individual and directed not against theAmerican Federation of Labor, but against certain
conceptions and policies of the present leadership of
the American Federation of Labor. The attitude ofthe Socialist Party to the American Federation ofLabor as such, as distinguished from its leadership,is absolutely friendly, and the criticism which is
directed against its present leadership, is also of a
friendly nature.
I shall mention these criticisms briefly. In the first
place, the Socialists believe that the leaders of the
American Federation of Labor fail to recognize the
drift and trend towards industrialism in organization.
Now, mind you, we don't say that the American Fed-eration of Labor is not developing in that direction.
It is. But what we do say is that the developmentis not aided consciously by its leaders, becau.se the
leaders fail to understand the importance of it. Thepresent leaders of the American Federation of Laborfail to see that industrial conditions to-day are not
what they were in 1881, when the Federation or its
predecessor was organized. Mr. Gompers placidly told
here on the stand that the American Federation of
Labor had originally adopted a plan and system of
absolute autonomy of trades and had rigidly adhered
to it. If it actually had, it would not be a subject for
praise, but one for severe criticism, because industrial
development has not stood still within the last thirtv
years. Industries to-day are more inter-related, moreinterwoven, more organically connected, than theywere in 1881, and if the workers are to keep pace with
174
them and be in a position to meet their employers andtheir organizations, they must organize accordingly.The example cited by Mr. Gompers, that of the State
organizations and the Federal Government of the
United States, does not apply at all. That is purely
political. And industry cannot be so separated fromits parts as one State may be separated geographicallyand arbitrarily from another. Now, we recognize,
however, that the American Federation of Labor is
tending toward ever greater industrial organizations.We fully approve of the report which Mr. Gompersoffered in evidence here before the Commission andfavor the extension of industrialism within the Amer-ican Federation of Labor. We only wish that the
leaders of the Federation had been clear-sighted
enough to see the tendency and to co-operate with it
and help it along more assiduously.Another point of criticism we have is this, that the
American Federation of Labor does not seem to un-derstand the significance of the agitation which hasassumed the name I. W. W., and here I want to
make this statement : The Socialist Party has no sym-pathy with the methods of the Industrial Workers ofthe World, none whatsoever. You have heard the
testimony of the representatives of that organization.We regard their methods as absolutely ineffective and
childishly inadequate. But the "Industrial Workers ofthe World" means more than the fourteen thousandmen organized in Mr. St. John's organization. It
means a certain new spirit in the American labor move-ment. It means Lawrence, it means Patersons. It
means Little Falls, it means McKeesport Rock. It
means this new phase of the labor movement whichhas arisen within the last few years. How are we to
account for it? How does the American Federation
of Labor account for it ? It is not a mere accident.
There must be some cause underlying it. Nothing is
produced without causes. The causes, as we Socialists
see them, are briefly stated as follows :
175
First, the development of machine industry hasmade skilled labor a less and less important factor, andunskilled labor a more important factor in this coun-
try. It has attracted a different type of immigrants,who have come here by millions, who have no right of
citizenship, are unorganized and poor beyond descrip-tion, and who have no means of civilized resistance or
welfare. It has created a new class within the work-
ing class, and has led to the spontaneous unorganizedand frequent violent outbursts which we designate bythe general phrase, "I. W. W. revolts." These revolts
are not explained by calling the I. W. W. names.
They represent a new phase in the labor movement,and the American Federation of Labor should havetaken cognizance of it by making more strenuous ef-
forts it has made honest efforts, I admit but it
should have made more strenuous efforts to organizethese men and to acclimatize them, and, if you want,to Americanize them and make them part and parcelof the American labor movement.
On the question of politics Mr. Hayes has said a
good deal, and, in view of my limited time, I shall not
take it up. But I wish to say a few words on another
subject of criticism, and that is the relation of certain
leaders of the American Federation of Labor to the
Civic Federation. The Civic Federation is an organiza-tion founded by employers for the purpose princi-
pally and primarily of deadening the aggressive spirit
of the American labor movement, and I think it is
succeeding marvellously. Mr. Gompers has stated
here that the National Civic Federation has no mem-bership, and that he is not a member of it. Since heis to follow me, I should like him to answer these few
questions :
First, if the National Civic Federation has no mem-bership and anyone who happens to come in has a
voice in the choice of officers, would it be permissiblefor me and, say, a hundred of my Socialist friends
176
to go to the next meeting and to vote in the election
of officials ? If it were, we might be tempted to try it.
Second, if the National Civic Federation has no
membership, it has, presumably, no dues. It main-tains an elaborate office. It pays salaries to a secretaryand a large staff of workers. It has various depart-ments. It spends very large sums of money. Oneof the features of its activities is a very lavish annual
banquet. I should like to know, Mr. Gompers, wherethat money comes from ? Does the American Federa-tion of Labor contribute any part to it, and if it does
not, who does? And if it is all contributed by our
capitalists and their friends in the National Civic Fed-
eration, I should like Mr. Gompers to say whether,in his opinion, such contributations are made solelyand singlemindedly for the benefit of the workers?
I am now ready to answer questions.
COMMISSIONER, GARRETSON: There has been one
point that has not been brought out here at all fromthe standpoint of the Socialists and on which I wouldlike an expression. What is the attitude of the So-cialists toward the means of economizing industrial
waste caused by strikes ? Do you look on the Erdmanact I am citing the only Federal enactment as adesirable means of settlement of labor difficulties?
MR. HILLQUIT: The Socialist Party has not ex-
pressed itself on this subject. The Socialists on the
whole regard a strike as a necessary and inevitable
evil an evil inherent in the present system and whichno amount of legislation can curb or change. In other
words, we believe that there is a case where we would
agree with Mr. Gompers and say, "Beware of the
Greeks bearing gifts," if the legislature were to enact
or offer to enact any measure tending to preventstrikes and to substitute other methods of settlement
of labor disputes. For what that might mean wouldbe that whereas the workers in well-organized indus-
tries to-day have that last resort, the strike, by which
177
they may enforce their demands, that weapon wouldbe taken away from them by legislative enactment.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON : You are aware of the
origin of the Erdman Act?MR. HILLQUIT: Not very well.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: I will say here that the
Erdman Act was pressed largely by the Railway or-
ganizations. Do you regard a purely voluntary settle-
ment as represented by that Act as a desirable agencybearing in mind that your views as expressed with
regard to the strike are exactly my own to minimizethe times when it becomes an absolute necessity?MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, if it can be done without
sacrifice to the workers.COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Or without pressure?MR. HILLQUIT: Without pressure and without sac-
rifice of the interests of the workers. I would, of
course, prefer, as a rule, to avoid strikes rather thanto incur strikes.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: You are also familiar
with the successor of the Erdman Act, the NewlandsAct?MR. HILLQUIT: In a general way.COMMISSIONER GARRETSON : Are you familiar with
the conditions that led up to its adoption?MR. HILLQUIT: I am not.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: You don't know whatfunction the Civic Federation performed in that?
MR. HILLQUIT: I do not.
COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: I am not on the wit-
ness stand.
MR. HILLQUIT: No. But there is only one point,Mr. Garretson, in which again I would like to quote
my friend Gompers with reference to the Civic Fed-
eration. I would say, "Beware of the Greeks bearing
gifts."COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: The closing paragraph
of instructions under which this Commission is cre-
178
ated, reads: "The Commission shall seek to discoverthe underlying cause of dissatisfaction in the indus-
trial situation and report its conclusions." If youwere a member of this Commission, what would youstate as your opinion to be the cause of the industrial
unrest ?
MR. HILLQUIT : That would be an exceedingly easytask for me. I think the National platform of the
Socialist Party gives a perfectly clear statement ofthe causes of the unrest, the ultimate remedy, andthe immediate remedy applicable to-day.
COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: What would be the
immediate remedy?MR. HILLQUIT: The immediate remedy would be
the adoption of the various planks in the platform of
the Socialist Party which I yesterday had the pleas-ure of reading to Mr. Gompers and to which he gaveassent in practically all cases. That would be the im-mediate remedy.COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL': What would you as-
sign as the cause of industrial unrest?
MR. HILLQUIT : The private ownership of the tools
for the production of the things which all men needto sustain their lives.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Now, I have a couple of ques-tions that I am going to submit to you and ask youif you will give them some sort of answer in writing.
MR. HILLQUIT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : We will give it whatever pub-lication we can, but I will ask you to give it some
thought, and I will ask you to hand it in. In addition
to the interests of the capitalists, and the workers,
tending to range them in opposition to each other, is
there not a sense of justice existing in some mindsthat inclines them to act without regard to class inter-
ests; and, second, are there any prominent capitalistsin the Socialist Party?
179
MR. HILLQUIT : The answer to both is "Yes "It
does not require any study.
CHAIR.MAN WALSH: Very well, that is all then.
SAMUEL GOMPERS, recalled.
MR. GOMPERS: Whenever any utterance is made
by me that may be a declaration of a principle or a
purpose with which the Socialists differ, they have no
hesitancy to misrepresent and misquote me. On the
contrary, the very emphasis which I may give to anyparticular point will simply be distorted again in order
that the misrepresentation may be continued. On the
subject of an eight-hour law I have said that we haveworked for the establishment of the eight-hour work-
day by law for all employes of the Government,whether National, State or Municipal, and for all
employes of contractors or sub-contractors who doGovernment work. An eight-hour day for all Govern-ment employes, because the Government is then the
employer. An eight-hour day for minors, and for
woman workers. But I am opposed to the statutory
fixing of the hours of labor for men, and I gave the
historic achievements of the working people of the
United States, true, only partially, but yet achieve-
ments secured by the workmen through their owninitiative, through their own collective action or byagreement with employers. Now, in the limited timeat my disposal, unless any further questions are asked
me, I should like to take up some things that have beensaid. First, the construction placed by Mr. Hillquit
upon the statement which I made in answer to one ofhis questions as to membership in the Civic Federa-tion. I omitted to say, "Dues-paying membership."Answering his question of this morning I should saythat the National Civic Federation exists by the volun-
tary contributions of those who agree to contribute in
furtherance of any thought or purpose that they mayhave in mind. I want to call your attention to the
180
studied effort of Mr. Hillquit to call that Association
the American Civic Federation, with the avowed ef-
fort frequently made by the Socialists, and as evi-
denced by his questions to me upon cross-examina-
tion, to confuse the American Federation of Laborwith the National Civic Federation, and to use the
term as the associates of Mr. Hillquit so frequentlyuse. They often refer to the American Federation
of Labor by the supposed title of the American Civic
Federation of Labor. The difference is between prac-tice and pretense. The pussy-footed Socialist, Mr.
Hillquit, before this Commission, is not the samekind of Socialist- before the world. (Laughter in
audience.)
It may not take a man five minutes to ask questions,which it would take hours, and sometimes weeks, to
answer. Th'at there may be no question on this mat-
ter, let me quote from Mr. Morris Hillquit, memberof the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party,one of its ablest and most sophistical exponents of
Socialism in this country. In the Metropolitan Mag-azine for July, 1912, he says:
"Stated in more concrete terms, the Socialist pro-
gram requires the public or collective ownershipand operation of the principal instruments and agen-cies for the production and distribution of wealth.
The land, mines, railroads, steamboats, telegraph and
telephone lines, mills, factories and modern machinery.This is the main program, and the ultimate aim of
the whole Socialist movement and the political creed
of all Socialists. It is the unfailing test of Socialist
adherence, and admits of no limitation, extension orvariation. Whoever accepts this program is a So-
cialist, whoever does not, is not."
In fact, in all their platforms, immediately follow-
ing their so-called "Social Reform" program, will
appear the frank avowal quoted below, this one being
181
taken from the platform of the national Socialist con-
vention in Indianapolis, in June, 1912:
"Such measures of relief as we may be able to
force from capitalism are but a preparation of the
workers to seize the whole powers of government in
order that they may thereby lay hold of the whole
system of socialized industry and thus come into
their rightful inheritance."
Mr. Chairman, I have here a number of quotations,which I should like to have incorporated as* a part ot
my statement, which I do not care, at this time, to readin my time.
CHAIRMAN WALSH : Very good. Just give themto the stenographer, and they will be identified andput in as part of your statement.
MR. GOMPERS : As to the suggestion . of makingmore strenuous efforts to organize the unskilled
workers, the American Federation of Labor, duringthe entire year, devotes more of its time and more ofits revenues, more of the efforts of its officers, organ-izers and representatives, to the organization of the
unskilled workers, than to any other one thing. It 'is
physically imposible to make more strenuous efforts
in any cause than are made in that direction by the
witness before this Commission at this time, and whois made the principal object of attack by t e Socialists
here and elsewhere. There is no man I don't care
who he is who works harder and more consistentlyand persistently in the effort to organize the workers, in
the effort to improve their conditions, in the effort to
secure, to firmly rivet, the rights to which the toilers
of our country are entitled ; and to the suggestion byone who is in the ranks of the Socialists, that morestrenuous efforts should be put forth, conies with ;
11
grace. After all, what is "skilled" and "unskilled"?
It is all a matter of graduation. There are some menwho say that they work with their heads. My answer
to that is, so do hogs. The matter of gifts and
182
powers and responsibility entering into their workare required in any field of wage labor. What would
you call the ditch digger, what would you call the
hod carrier, the laborer? What would you call the
conductor on a street railway ? What would you call
a street railway motorman, a man who will acquirethe ability to operate a car in the course of six or
eight or ten hours, and is entrusted after that with the
operation of the car? The fact of the matter is, that
for a long period of years the Socialists have had the
open sesame to the people of Europe, who speak lan-
guages other than English, and the minds of the for-
eign speaking workmen have been poisoned againstthe American Federation of Labor, and, as a con-
sequence, many of the workmen from other countries
in which languages other than English are spoken,come here with minds prejudiced and poisoned againstthe American labor movement, and they start out what
they regard as their own movement.
Now, before I get deeper into this question, let mesay that I quite agree with Mr. Hayes' statement that,
after all, the quarrel is among us, our dispute is amongus, the working people, and we are fighting it out as
best we know how. Men who are Socialists belong to
the unions affiliated with the American Federation ofLabor. Mr. Hayes is a member of the International
Typographical Union, and I think at least he will
agree with me in this, that in the conventions of the
International Typographical Union he has as muchsay as any other member or delegate. In the con-
ventions of the American Federation of Labor he has
as free a throw to express his opinion as any other
man.
And I want to call your attention to this one fact,
that, during the period of preparation of the Inter-
national Typographical Union for the inaugurationof the eight-hour workday, and in the face of the
possibility of a strike being inaugurated for its ac-
183
complishment, Mr. Max Hayes, the Socialist, watr.ctful enough to declare that Socialist policy andSocialist philosophy must not be injected into the trade
union movement, at least during the period of that
controversy. And I held with him. But where his
was a temporary limitation, mine is an absolute one.
It is not necessary to make more difficult the strenu-
ous struggle of America's organized workers with
their terrific enemies and powerful employers.
The other point of difference particularly lies, andI want to emphasize it, in the constant attempt of
Socialist speakers and writers to belittle the achieve-
ments of the organized labor movement of America.Their argument is that, even after you increase wages,it does not do any material good. It is simply so mucheffort wasted. The effort of the Socialist Party is to
divert the attention of the American working peoplefrom the immediate needs and from the immediate
struggle to something remote. If the working peopleof America can be made to believe that they can -ecure
the relief they need, the improvement which is justly
theirs, the freedom which they ought to have, by cast-
ing a vote once every year, wherefore join in the
unions engaged in the every-day struggle to improvematerial conditions now? It is the position of the
man who preaches from the pulpit that the workingpeople are in the position God ordained, and that theywill have a better time in the sweet bye and bye. Andit is the same with the Socialists, who paint a beauti-
ful picture of a future, luring the workmen fromthe immediate struggles to the hopes for the future.
It is the idea of men being diverted from the immedi-ate struggles and immediate needs for the natural,rational development of the human race
;and securing
day by day, and week by week, and month by month,and year by year, a little to-day, a little to-morrow,
adding, adding, gaining, gaining, moving forward, al-
ways a step in advance, and never taking one receding
184
step except it be to plant the foot forward firmer thrui
ever before.
I would not want any man to believe that our move-ment is satisfied. There is not anything satisfying in
what we have accomplished. It is gratifying but
simply whets our appetite and desires for better andbetter and still better things
My time is running away from me, and there is so
much to say, and yet I cannot help, but must take
cognizance of the explanations which Mr. tiillquit
made for Mr. Berger in voting to sustain the Presi-
dent's veto in the House of Representatives.
You know that the Congress of the United States,
using the nomenclature of Socialists, is a capitalistic
concern. The Congress. of the United States passedtwo measures amended by the American Federation
of Labor, and that is :
1. For a better regulation of immigration into the
United States; and
2. An appropriation bill in which was contained
the demands made by the American Federation of
Labor.
It was that appropriations contained in that bill
should not be used to prosecute men or women oflabor in their effort to raise wages, shorten hours orto improve their working conditions. I grant that
that was not a fundamental law and that it was not
so far-reaching, but capitalist Congress passed it at
the request of labor, and Mr. Victor Berger, the onlySocialist member of Congress, voted first against the
proposition itself, and then when the President vetoed
it, he, as the representative of this great party of labor,
voted to sustain a President in that veto; and let mesay that the idea of a man of democratic tendencies,much less a pronounced Socialist, voting in favor of
sustaining the veto of any President upon any meas-ure is contrary to the principles of democracy; for
185
the Presidential veto is nothing more than an inheri-
tance of the exercise of the royal prerogative.
COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL: What was the second r
MR. GOMPERS: The other bill, Mr. O'Connell, wasa bill to regulate immigration to the United States,which every man realizes is necessary, no matter whatdifferences there may be as to the degree of regula-tion and limitation. There is a general agreementamong the people of the United States that some regu-lation and limitation is necessary other than that whichexists to-day. That bill passed the house of Repre-sentatives and the United States Senate by overwhelm-
ing majorities, and then came to the President. ThePresident vetoed it, and Mr. Berger voted to sustain
the veto, and was one among the minority which stoodin the way of securing the two-thirds vote to pass the
bill over the President's veto, an action which shouldnot only damn the man politically in his own party,but in the eyes of every democrat in the best sense ot
that term, and not in its party sense.
The American Federation of Labor has alwaysbeen striving to get the workmen to organize and to
unite, to fraternize, and to make a common cause as
best you can; to have their agreements terminatedas near as possible, about the same time, so that newjoint agreements of one industry or kindred trades
might be made under the best conditions with the
employers.
May I call attention again to the report of the Ex-ecutive Council to the Rochester Convention on the
question of industrial unionism. The report of the
committee upon that subject, which was adopted bythe Convention, was submitted to Mr. Hillquit uponthe witness stand, and he could express no dissent
from it. Yet, this morning he said that we have not
reached, and are only reaching that goal from whichhe himself could not dissent.
In regard to the Workmen's Compensation bill, let
186
me say this: "That there are now representatives oflabor as Commissioners on that commission, and since
Mr. John Mitchell was appointed a Commissioner, hehas been stigmatized by the Socialist press and
speakers as a faker, a four-flusher and a fraud uponthe American workmen. Mr. James Lynch, the Com-missioner of the Deparement of Labor, formerlyPresident of the International Typographical Union,has been denounced time and again as a faker, four-
flusher and fraud, an imposter upon labor, a misleader.
Let the trade union movement anywhere in the coun-
try nominate a labor man for any position, such as,
for instance, the Board of Aldermen, the State Legis-lature, or Congress of the United States, and the So-cialist Party will antagonize him. Why, Mr. Frank
Buchanan, former President of the Bridge & Struc-
tural Iron Workers' Union, a candidate for Congressin Chicago, 111., was antagonized by the Socialist
Party. In the last election when he was runningfor re-election, Mr. Victor Berger came from Mil-
waukee, neglecting his own district, in order to defeat
Frank Buchanan* as a member of Congress. That is
the instance that comes to me just now.
* The "trade union" candidates for political office re-
ferred to by Mr. Gompers are not candidates nominated
b^ trade unions and running as labor representatives.
They are candidates of the Democratic or Republicanparties, who happen to hold union cards, but are pledgedto the conservative platforms of the old parties and takeorders from those parties. They are used by the shrewdpoliticians as decoys for the thoughtless labor vote. Inthe state assemblies and in Congress they represent notthe interests of the workers but those of the employers,who dominate the old political parties.The activities of such men tend to confuse, mislead, and
sometimes even to corrupt the labor movement, and theSocialists quite properly oppose them at the polls. TheSocialist Party itself most frequently nominates union menfor public office, but then the candidates run on a distinctlabor platform and are entirely free from the dominationof any capitalist political party.
187
I am simply thinking aloud. It is not just oneinstance; there is no deviation from their course. AsI say, it is the difference between the pretence madehere and the practice which obtains throughout.
I remember, Mr. Chairman, one question that I didnot answer, and to which I now desire to address my-self. That is, in the establishment of so-called bigunions, "one big union" for labor.
First, we had the National Labor Union. It was thefirst general organization of labor. Then came the
Rochester Convention of the National Labor Union.And I can recommend to every student, and particu-
larly do I recommend to Mr. Hillquit, the reading of
the Declaration of Purposes of the National Labor
Union, which met at Rochester, somewhere in the six-
ties, and he will find that the declarations of -"imme-diate demands" contained in the Socialist Party; the
immediate demands upon which he questioned meyesterday were more fully, amply and ably set forth
by the National Labor Union than by the Socialist
Party, who purloined all this stuff from us.
* The history of the National Labor Union is fullytreated in my "History of Socialism in the United States,"first published in 1903. The National Labor Union wasorganized in Baltimore in 1863 and remained in existenceuntil 1876. Its radical and class-conscious declaration ,of
principles was largely inspired by one Edward Schlegel,a German Socialist of the Lassalleau School. Under the
leadership of William H. Sylvis, one of the keenest mindsand noblest characters produced by the American labor
movement, the organization adopted the policy of inde-
pendent working class action in politics and formed the"National Reform Party," in 1868. Unfortunately Sylvisdied suddenly in 1869. The National Labor Union fell into
the hands of weak and over-conservative leaders, whosought alliances with old-party politicians. This policyeventually brought about the dissolution of the first gen-eral organization of American labor. In my turn I
strongly recommend to Mr. Gompers the study of the
history and the fate of the American Labor Union.M. H.
188
The Knights of Labor, the Western Labor Union,the American Labor Union, the Socialist Trade andLabor Alliance, and the Industrial Workers of the
World, I have no right to make any choice as to
which is the better; I believe the statement of each
of the representatives of the I. W. W., when they
speak of the other I. W. W.And now, as I said, Mr. Debs is engaged in a move-
ment to destroy the American Federation of Labor;and I am not misquoting him, I am not misrepresent-
ing him these are his direct words, and if you care,
I should be very glad to submit them to you.
CHAIRMAN WALSH: Please submit them, because,Mr. Gompers, you have just three minutes left.
MR. GOMPERS: Then I want to refer to this "one
big union." There is not anything that could be moredisastrous to the interests of labor than the establish-
ment, if it could be established, of a so-called "one
big union." There are differentiations in all humanactivities. Perhaps no better comparison can be cited
than the military force on the battlefield and in the
preparation for battle, and the organized labor move-ment on the industrial field. In the military estab-
lishment of this or any other country, each corps ofmen are doing their particular work, know when that
work is to be done, and how to do it, and each workswith the other upo the best accepted understandingof the purpose which the army is to achieve. Thetactics change, and they have changed now from. what
they were, ten, fifty or one hundred years ago. Andso has the labor movement. Yet it is organized scien-
tifically upon the basis that each is to do a particu-lar thing at the particular time, and that each accom-
plish and in the whole accomplishes their great pur-
poses. But now imagine the infantrymen and the cav-
alrymen, the men on the horse were all thrown in to-
gether. What would occur? The worst thing whichcould occur to such an army would be to order a
189
movement of any kind to advance or retreat. Theonly safety for them would be to stand still foreverand anon. And so with the labor movement. Thelabor movement organized in a trade, in a calling,in an industry, with its departments such as have al-
ready been established, the coalition of each with the
other, each helping the other to do the best thing that
can be done for the one specific purpose of best pro-
tecting the men and women of labor, and the children
of our time, to promote, to help them promote their
best interests, now and for the future, neither tread
ing upon the other, all trying as best they can in the
light of their intelligence, in the light of their ex-
perience, in the light of the plans formulated by them-selves and those chosen to speak for them, well or-
dered, rational, democratically-governed, as such the
movement of organized labor of America will lead to
the attainment, as it has already led to the attainment
of the highest possible conditions of life, and to the
conscience that shall demand as well as give to everyhuman being the rights, the liberties of the better
civilization to which we are constantly tending andfor which we are striving.
190
WHY VICTOR BERGER VOTED AGAINST THAT"RIDER" TO THE SUNDRY CIVIL BILL.
In answer to the criticism of Sam Gompers, I have the
following to say:
I voted against the "rider" to the sundry civil bill (notto use any of the money of the appropriation for the our-
pose of enforcing the Sherman anti-trust act against tradeunions and agricultural organizations), because I con-sidered that amendment a cowardly and dishonest make-shift that meant nothing.
And for the following reasons:
First This provision would only apply to criminal pro-ceedings. But crimina.1 prosecution has never been broughtunder the provisions of the Sherman act against a tradeunion or a farmer organization until this provision waspassed that was supposed to protect them. I said at thetime that the "rider" was a swindle because, under its
provision only this particular fund could not be used for
the criminal prosecution of a union. But if the govern-ment really would desire the criminal prosecution of someunion, the money could simply be taken from some otherfund. The government has all kinds of funds at its dis-
posal. President Wilson has pointed that out himselfwhen later ton such a bill passed under his administration.Yet he signed the sundry civil bill with the "rider," sothat Sam Gompers could say that the Democratic Partyhad done something for the trade unions.
Second While the sundry civil "rider" apparentlyseemed to exempt labor organizations from prosecution,that act did not prevent private persons or corporations
from, bringing suit against unions and union men to re-
cover damages caused by strikes and boycotts. There-fore, if that "rider" had been in force at the time the
191
Hatters' Union in Danbury was sued for damages, it wouldnot have given the workmen any protection whatsoever.
Third The exemption clause being a "rider" on an
appropriation bill ceased to operate as soon as that par-ticular appropriation expired. That means the exemptioncould hold good for only one year at best even if it could
accomplish what the Gompers lobby claimed it would ac-
complish. The whole affair was simply a bare-faced
attempt to make the uninformed union men believe thatthe expensive Gompers lobby in Washington was doingsomething for them.
The Socialists are not in the business of busting trusts.
And we are not asking for any special exemption from theSherman act
We oppose all anti-trust legislation. As a matter of
principle, therefore I, Victor Berger, Socialist, while in
Congress, introduced a bill based on class-conscious politi-cal action, providing for the repeal of the Sherman act
altogether and for the enactment of honest, sensible andreally progressive legislation in its place. This wouldbenefit the people in general and the working class in
particular. 1 did not feel that I was under any obligationto assist Mr. Sam Gompers in his trades and deals withthe capitalist parties or in his attempts to blindfold tradesunion voters.
Victor L. Berger.
The Co-Operative Preti. 15 Spruce Street. New York
University of California
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388
Return this material to the libraryfrom which it was borrowed.
UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
.ill mi inn 111 ii inn mil in ii inn mil mil inn in |
A 001 073 408 5